Why public relations needs real public relations

A great reflection on the latest round of PR criticism is provided at Global Neighbourhoods: The Annual Bashing of PR practitioners.

Like many other service careers these days, the reputation of public relations is too often influenced by those who are not interested in best practice, acting ethically or adapting to changes such as social media.

Also, as criticisms largely originate from those on the receiving end of the “press agentry” (bling PR) approach, the wider remit and responsibilities of public relations are missed. 

Does this matter?  Isn’t PR big enough to withstand a bit of baiting?  That for me is the crux of the matter.  We need to be more confident and open about what we do - and practice real PR for PR.   That means the likes of CIPR need to up their game, but so do all those practitioners who dislike being associated with the poor reputation.  We need to prove, loud and proud, that PR means building relationships with publics (including the media and bloggers) based on ethical principles and solid values of respect and conversations not puff, publicitity, propaganda, spin or biased rhetoric.

We need an ethos of working with others - being helpful and responsive - prepared to argue our corner and demonstrate effectively to CEOs why DIY PR isn’t really the answer.   Good PR practitioners need good CEOs and should never act as a barrier between the organisation and those who help form its reputation.   We should be facilitators and respected counsellors, not the special protection force.

Good organisations need good PR, to help them build and communicate a strong reputation and effective relationships with publics - as well as managing issues and possible crisis situations.

Media relations are part of this, and need to be conducted professionally.  PR will also often work with marketing and may create pseudo-news, but should ensure that this side of the profession doesn’t dominate, especially when poorly practised.

There will always be “rogue” PR practitioners, like the weakest link in any profession.  The challenge is to focus more on best practice and ensure people entering the profession don’t just learn bad habits from those who believe PR is intuitive rather than something that can be learned and improved.

Unfortunately this might not warrant a round of blogging discussion - because good news is rarely as interesting as highlighting problems.  

Is live television organ donation the ultimate PR awareness campaign?

Given the global coverage of the apparent plans of the Big Donor Show (a reality programme where a dying woman will choose a donor for one of her kidneys), it is hard not to feel that the producers’ apparent objective of drawing attention to a shortage of organ donors has been achieved.

Laurens Drillich, chairman of the BNN network in the Netherlands behind the programme is reported as saying:

“We know that this program is super controversial and some people will think it’s tasteless, but we think the reality is even more shocking and tasteless: Waiting for an organ is just like playing the lottery.”

It is hard not to argue with the sentiment here - and the genuine involvement of the station given that its founder Bart de Graaff, died five years ago, aged just 35 from kidney failure after years on the transplant waiting list.

The approach illustrates the challenges facing campaigners and public relations practitioners working with health issues.  Would the media show such interest in a regular awareness campaign?  Would the public?  Undoubtedly, the strategy here has got people talking about this issue - the “shock appeal” has worked in generating coverage.

But, will it achieve any aims beyond publicity?  I doubt it - the politicians have been busy decrying the alleged programme but not acknowledging its underlying message. 

Campaigners need a change in public attitude towards registering and offering organs for donation - whilst the politicians seriously need to consider whether opt out donor schemes would be better than the current opt in ones.

Although the topic has been back on the agenda today - it is unlikely to have changed attitudes or behaviour.  And it has undoubtedly ranked up the “shock” levels required to generate such media attention just a little bit more.

Build-A-Toy-Car idea has wheels

Having moaned about Polly wheels (toy cars for girls), I really like the concept of Ridemakerz stores where customers (expected to be predominantly dads and lads) select car components to customise their own toy. 

Traditional toy car kits (as I remember them) were hard work, compared to this idea of an in-store construction.  There’s choice in selecting a chassis type, body style, paint scheme, sound effects and “style of locomotion”.  That’s before all the after-build “customizing and accessorizing options”.  The prices seem quite steep, but the idea definitely has wheels.

Birmingham serves up Chinese cars

When I was a weird student, I lived just down the road from the Longbridge car plant in Birmingham.  It was the tailend days of Red Robbo when strikes were more common than car production. 

Having subsequently spent my career in automotive public relations - including visiting several times what was once the world’s largest manufacturing facility - I am interested to see Chinese company Nanjing Automobile Corporation announcing the return of car production to Birmingham.

I think the company faces quite a challenge to establish its reputation in Britain, not least since the MG took quite a battering with serious brand misuse in the later Rover years.  However, if they can capture some of the fun and glamour of the MG BGT that I once had the pleasure of owning, the Brummies could well swap their reputation for excellent balti cooking for making Chinese cars.

Where have all the weird students gone?

Darren’s thoughts on my post “Everything is average nowadays” regarding alter egos and stepping outside the safety zone, got me thinking about University students - and particularly the ones I meet in public relations.

No offence, but they are all awfully nice and normal.  There aren’t many weird or eccentric students in the class of 2007.

I’m not talking about disfunctional in a US University sense, fortunately.  But young people willing to express themselves with a style and/or opinions that marks them out from the crowd.  Where are the wacky or weird ones?  I know it is Bournemouth, but…

So do they reflect typical Generation Y or Millennial traits?  Apparently, this generation’s form of rebellion is to be anti-rebels; to be more subserviant to authority.  They are the “risk averse” generation having received a lot of parental attention owing to falling birth rates.  Supposedly this is a “sad generation“; depressed by gloomy world events, a lifetime of debt and a cynical marketing-savvy outlook. 

But isn’t this the Internet Generation - sociable and achievement-oriented?  They know just what to do to succeed, so don’t need to rock the boat.  Parental attention makes them feel special, gives them high expectations.  They see adults as equals not the establishment to be challenged.  They’re students in desres accommodation - with microwaves, washing machines and wifi for their laptops. 

Clearly these are stereotypes, but the fact remains, I meet very few eccentric students.  Maybe like those going to Harvard they are just “secure in their own fabulosity, so they really don’t brag, and they’ll totally be happy for you if you do something cool.”

PR for mongrels

Following my recent thoughts on dogs and propaganda, Judy and I have been emailing about a trend that was unknown to me - the rebranded mongrel or crossbreed.

First, she sent me a picture of Ivy - a schoodle - apparently a poodle-schnauzer cross (in this case in miniature form).  Today, I’ve learned about the labradoodle (labrador-poodle mix).

Allegedly the poodle’s coat makes it a good choice for those with allergies - so the breed is a favourite for mixing.  An online search reveals a number of poo-dogs, such as: spoodles or cockapoos  (poodle and cocker spaniel), roodles (a seemingly odd mix of poodle and rottweiler) and yorkipoos (you’ve guessed it - yorkshire terrier meets poodle).

The dorgi is fairly well known as originating when one of the Queen’s corgis mated with a dachshund owned by the late Princess Margaret.

CNN reported a couple of years ago that the trend was leading to high prices for the “designer mutts” with new mixes being created on demand. 

Personally I am a big fan of rescue dogs, especially true mongrels.  There are millions in need of a good home - and don’t support an industry that views animals for their income potential, as brands or genetic experiments.

If it was a matter of creating a name to help owners adopt a particular mongrel, I could accept the branding exercise.  But not when it involves a deliberate selective breeding programme. 

For me that’s the same as seeing dogs as commodities or fashion items (Paris Hilton puppy-purse) or creating a multi-billion dollar industry that has failed to resolve a major pet-food poisoning crisis.

Car prize scam

My junk email filter caught two scams this morning, both involving the “opportunity” to win a brand new car.  For those of us in public relations, the language and approach is so poor that we are unlikely to be fooled - but there is another issue regarding misuse of brand names, with both claiming to originate from respectable companies - Honda and Mercedes.

I presume the legal guys from companies increasingly spend time countering these bogus competitions (although with little success I imagine). 

But what about PR professionals?  Is there any damage caused to company reputations by being targetted by such scams? 

Sharpen your pencil

I hate getting direct mail from charities - particuarly those enclosing a cheap biro - but this Amnesty International advert from Malaysia (Link to Ads of the World) is great.  It captures the essence and values of Amnesty - write for freedom.  Clear and simple. 

Everything is average nowadays…

Are the Kaiser Chiefs correct?  Does this criticism apply equally to public relations? Is Matthew Stibbe right to feel “PR doesn’t work” and needs a fundamental change?

Are too many practitioners and PR firms content to be average?  As a profession do we have a common failure to use new media, produce dreadful press releases, abuse surveys, lack understanding of bloggers, fail to recognise what makes a good story, habitually lie and abuse case studies?

I’ve found that in blogging about PR it is definitely easier to find examples of the mediocre rather than the brilliant or exceptional.  Very little seems to deviate successfully from the norm.

I think such criticisms are wider than PR alone - it is hard to see signs that most people are aspiring to be better than average.  But that’s the problem with an average - it is what is common, the norm, the mid-point.   

It takes courage and commitment to deliver above average - to exceed expectations, to throw away the book of rules, to just do something else.

The fundamental change - not exclusively for PR practitioners - has to be to strive for higher standards in everything we do.    That will, of course, simply shift the average (to be statistically pedantic), but we should seek to stretch the standard deviation away from the arithmetic mean.

Are you happy to cluster closely around the average?  Most PR practitioners have the potential to exceed the routine or mundane in their activities.  What’s stopping us from being better than the stereotypes of the fluffy PR totty or antagonistic spin doctor?  Why are we content that our work reflects so many of the clichéd criticisms? 

Does everything have to be average nowadays?

Business ignorance rather than bias at BBC

The BBC Trust has found BBC reporters are largely ignorant of business affecting output on commercial matters.   

The full report identifies “a lack of awareness of the commercial world – many BBC journalists have never worked in business - and from a preoccupation with taking the consumer perspective.”

and that “a lack of specialist knowledge and perhaps a lack of interest” can be an issue.  It notes that “witnesses” (probably public relations practitioners in business organisations) are concerned

about the poor level of knowledge among some of the researchers who contact them. There was also concern about the range and quality of the experts used on many business stories.

Interestingly the report also notes that:

Focusing on the individual consumer angle can distort news values and important
perspectives can be lost. The polarisation of views between business and consumer means that much of the ground in between is overlooked. This includes the role of business in society, the international context and the workplace. Audiences are well served in their identity as consumers but they are not that well served in their role as workers or indeed as direct or indirect shareholders.

There is a challenge to public relations with the conclusion that

apparently be difficult to persuade some business leaders to appear on BBC
news output but we believe those who run businesses should do more to engage
with the BBC and be prepared to explain their policies and activities to a wider public.

Recommendations include an “extensive training programme” within the BBC and an expanded coverage of the role of business in society. 

That could be good news for public relations practitioners working with business clients.  There are some very good business programmes on the BBC;   BBC Breakfast, Working Lunch, The Money Programme - plus Radio 4’s In Business for example.

Others, notably light entertainment (eg The Apprentice or Dragons Den) and consumer programmes (eg Watchdog and the new look Panorama), tend to sensationalise, parody or even demonise business.

It would be good to see journalism degrees include business matters more on the agenda.  I have found a lack of knowledge of corporate affairs with undergraduates in public relations - and this is obviously an area that is addressed during their studies.

Can working PR practitioners also do more to help journalists understand our perspectives?  Better briefings and engagement with executives, behind the scenes visits, even job swaps? 

We are good in the motor industry at such access and our specialist journalists tend to be well informed.  Does this impact on their impartiality?  I don’t believe it does for most journalists.  Our biggest challenge is communicating often complex economic, environmental, and other issues to a wider and wider range of journalists, who like those at the BBC are often lacking in a fundamental understanding of the business world.