Bashing the banks - CSR is not the answer

There are several interesting stories criticising banks and credit card companies in the news today.  First, the Bank of England governor criticised high street banks for not issuing £5 notes through cash machines.  Mervyn King is quoted as saying:

“Such mutual convenience is a public good, and may not correspond to the private interest of commercial banks.”

Secondly, the banks have taken over responsibility for reporting credit card fraud to the police.  Although the banks claim not to have asked for a recent change in the law, they are criticised for hiding the true extent of the crime owing to a vested interest.

The third story relates to moves by Barclaycard (and other card providers) to reduce the minimum required monthly fees, which is marketed as a benefit, whilst actually causing many people to get into greater debt.

Perhaps given the scale of the industry, it is not unusual to see such negative stories in the media.  But it does make you wonder about their strategies with regard to public relations.  There is little evidence of any recognition of mutual interersts or corporate social responsibility in these policies. 

However, each of the major banks boasts of a CSR strategy.  For example,  Barclays wants to be leaders, not followers in CSR.  HSBC is active in climate change partnerships and promotes “sustainable banking”.  HBOS expresses a commitment to stakeholders through its standards and values.

I’m not disputing the investment and recognition of the value of CSR in the financial institutions - but there seems to be a conflict here between lots of good initiatives and business practices that lead to public criticisms.

It is likely that those responsible for managing and communicating such CSR programmes are separate to the “sharp-end” press officers responding to the media criticism. 

Does this matter?  After all, doesn’t society benefit from all the actions being undertaken under the CSR banner?   Is it realistic to expect commercial organisations to act in the interests of the public when conducting their business activities?

Maximising kiddie power

Having grown up in a seaside bed and breakfast, I learned from a young age how to be useful in helping my mum by doing small tasks in the business, such as laying the tables. 

I think it is good for children to gain a work ethic when young.  So, the Rideable Vacuum Cleaner caught my eye.  How brilliant is this?  Not only can children enjoy a funky ride-upon vehicle, but you can put them to work cleaning the floor at the same time.

Multi-tasking MPs?

The New Marketing reports an idea proposed by Jack Straw that members of parliament should be allowed to use mobile phones, PDAs and wireless laptops in the chamber of the House of Commons to increase poor attendance rates.

I can’t think of anything worse - how could they possibly concentrate on the topics of discussion if their minds are elsewhere? 

There is a lot of online comment already regarding Continuous Partial Attention.  This is said to result from trying to focus on too many information sources simultaneously leading to superficial attention rather than considered reflection.

It may well be that humans are adapting to the need to concentrate on multiple items at once - although there is evidence that multi-tasking is not more efficient. 

Given the male dominance of the House of Commons and cultural indications that women make better multi-taskers, I’m not convinced this idea will get off the ground.

But in the event that it does, apparently if the solution if a brain become overloaded is to rest - which provides a new excuse for all those parliamentarians caught having a nap whilst in the debating chamber.

Behind the Spin under threat

Behind the Spin is a great magazine distributed to all student members of the CIPR and to all UK universities teaching public relations.  [It is also available to download in the members' area of CIPR's website]

It was the brainchild of John Hitchins at the College of St Mark and St John in Plymouth, but has proved to be a national success featuring articles from students, lecturers, researchers and practitioners on all aspects of public relations.

Now I hear that the publication is under threat because CIPR has decided to withdraw its contribution to the funding. 

What is particularly brilliant about Behind the Spin is that it reflects topics of value to those starting out on their careers in PR and provides an excellent platform for their individual and combined talents.

It is a showcase for public relations as a profession and I believe it is exactly the type of initiative that a professional body such as CIPR should be supporting.  Of course, other revenue sources should also be sought;  although Behind the Spin is only published three times a year, it has a unique, targeted circulation of PR undergraduates.

Behind the Spin should be viewed as a good marketing tool by CIPR to encourage those studying PR at University to become members.  These young people are the lifeblood of the profession and should become engaged in the Institute at the earliest stage of their career.

Is it not possible to offer funding direct from student membership fees - with a view that the lifelong value of such members should be substantial? 

I hope CIPR will reconsider its decision and urge any former students who have enjoyed the magazine along with anyone involved in PR education to lobby Mark Ramsdale (Head of Education Policy) by email: MarkR@cipr.co.uk.

Private equity and public relations

What is the effect on public relations of the purchase by private equity firms of an increasing number of major UK companies? 

If recent editions of PR Week are anything to go by, the initial stalking stage is good business for a number of major financial relations firms, but the in-house PR teams are commonly slashed once a deal goes through.

This would fit with a systems theory approach which proposes the benefits of public relations are best recognised in organisations with open cultures, where engagement and dialogue are paramount. 

When the focus is entirely on the short-term bottom line areas such as employee and community relations will be seen as less important.  Similarly, media relations activities are scaled back as PR is seen as a tactical, reactive, press agentry function rather than a strategic, pro-active, relationship building one. 

The communications strategy is likely to be of a one-way, need-to-know variety.  But is that the right approach?  Aren’t the reputations of the companies that private equity firms aims to turnaround their biggest assets to be managed and nurtured to deliver optimum returns?

Isn’t stakeholder management even more critical when politicians and unions are concerned, even opposed, about the increasing dominance of this form of ownership?  If nothing else, isn’t good pro-active media management necessary?  

James Harding of the Times notes the difficulty of practising public relations in the closed world of the private equity industry, which is “chronically shy of publicity”

Private equity has been in the news all year, largely generating negative headlines.  This week headlines come ahead of a meeting of the Treasury select committee regarding taxation. 

On Friday, Peter Linthwaite, Chief Executive of the British Venture Capital Association (BVCA) resigned after criticism from members that he had failed to “fend off the rising tide of criticism from politicians and trade unions“.

The FT Alphaville believes the members set an unrealistic goal for the trade body:

Expecting the BVCA to mount a robust, well-argued defence of the indefensible is frankly unreasonable. Expecting them to do so in the full glare of the House of  Commons, while being set upon by predatory politicians, well-versed in the art of the sound-bite and salivating at the prospect of glorifying themselves by coming up with the most scathing put-down for the next days papers, is bordering on inhumane.  The MPs must be cock-a-hoop.  No political downside on this one.

The private equity groups, who have used the BVCA largely as a shield behind which to conduct their business, should ask themselves how they have managed their own PR during the industry’s entry to the public consciousness. HSBC doesn’t rely on the British Bankers’ Association to manage its public image - it does its own talking.

This is excellent endorsement for public relations regardless of the ownership structure of an organisation. 

It appears that those facing the hot seat in parliament this week have called on senior PR counsel - but this seems to be largely about the CEOs under fire being able to defend themselves rather than recognising the wider benefits and remit of public relations.  This is reflected in a call for funding a “publicity war chest” to defend the industry.

There seems to be little recognition that key stakeholders - such as the unions, politicians and the media, let alone employees themselves - need to be engaged through two-way communications in the modern business world.   The approach of private equity to public relations is dated and defensive.

Clearly those with the big incomes are used to getting their own way, with little explanation or accommodation.   But they cannot complain about a lack of public understanding when their approach to communications is secretive, closed and manipulative.

Whether private equity is good for public relations is debatable - but clearly public relations could be good for private equity.

Is aggression ever a successful PR strategy?

Fascinating post at Screaming Headlines which raises all sorts of questions regarding how to address blogs containing online links and comments that your organisation may not like.   

Managing reputation is a critical aspect of public relations, hence monitoring and engaging in online discussion is vital.  But as Pete highlights, in some cases, an aggressive approach is being undertaken, that could be viewed even as threatening.

A defensive approach to public relations isn’t exclusive to the online environment.  Alistair Campbell is among those renowned for bullying journalists - and there are many tales of celebrity PRs who bar journalists who don’t report “nicely” on their clients.

Everyone in PR will have been faced with negative coverage and irate executives who demand we stop anyone writing bad things (even when they are true).  The usual threat from marketing colleagues is to withhold advertising to “sort out” media critics.

But does aggression work?  I tend to use an analogy of an Alsatian dog, who you can beat and bully into submission.  I prefer to train a dog to respect me - not least because they will come to my aid in times of crisis.  If you are being attacked, you don’t need your own dog joining the fight and biting you from behind.

I don’t believe that bullying journalists or bloggers is a successful PR strategy - just remember, they too can bite back. 

Free photo criticism

I’ve just had an email from my father asking which of the following two images he has taken do I think is the best?  So in the spirit of social media - perhaps you could comment on which you prefer and why…

How cool is this?

The Top Gear Cool Wall is so great - not only can you create (and save, if you register) your own views on a range of cars, but you get Clarkson’s sarcastic opinions on your decisions.

Superb linkage to the popular television programme, good integration and the personality of Clarkson directed at you.  Bound to be a source of debate and argument around offices and anywhere sad petrolheads and anoraks congregate. 

I beat Borkowski in high heels

Mark Borkowski ponders the recyling of stunts and whether there will continue to be media mileage if tactics are repeating with increasing frequency.

I wrote about recyling stories in April regarding driving on Friday 13th, which I’d originally used 15 years ago at National Breakdown - and Norwich Union had just repeated.

Borkowski cites a story in today’s Daily Mail from Sheila’s Wheels, about “how high heels and other unsuitable foot ware can be extremely dangerous when driving”.  [BTW, outrageous misuse of statistics claiming : up to 12million women are putting lives at risk by driving in "inappropriate footwear"] 

Apparently one of Borkowski’s teams commissioned a similar survey nearly two years ago for Norwich Union (yes, them again).

Well, I have the cuttings to prove that this was another of my stories way back when at National Breakdown.  I actually commissioned cartoons and published expert advice against driving in Wellington boots, platform shoes, high heels, flip flops, bare feet, etc etc.

But, I wasn’t the first to pick up on this idea either as this cutting shows, from Popular Mechanics magazine in 1936:

I hope Mark is right that the media will become wise to unimaginative rehashing of pseudo-news by PRs - but somehow I doubt it.

Automotive environment messages lack global consistency and real responsibility

Automotive public relations practitioners in Europe, and particularly the UK, have been engaged in communicating the improving environmental credentials of vehicles for several years now.  One particular success has been in terms of public understanding of CO2 emissions, not least in terms of its relation to vehicle tax.  The SMMT sustainability report records other developments.

But low carbon efforts here seem to run counter to the US where automakers are fighting fuel efficiency standards.

Indeed, Seth Godin slates the management of US car companies as an example of a lack of personal and corporate responsibility.  He notes short term thinking among those who cite the market and business as justification for their actions. 

I believe that every criminal, no matter how heinous the crime, deserves an attorney. I don’t believe that every product and every organization and every politician deserves world-class marketing or PR.

Freedom of choice?  The business of business is business?  Just doing your job repeating corporate messages?  If you seek to influence and persuade others, you have a personal responsibility regarding the outcome.

The big shame in the auto-industry is that the focus on maintaining a status quo is short sighted and ultimately self-defeating.  Sure you might maintain some jobs and sales now, but to secure a longer term profitable market, companies need to be ahead of trends - it is futile to try to stop the future.

What is frustrating in terms of the automotive industry, is that many people inside it want to be responsible, want to act now, want to secure the long-term success that addressing environmental issues pro-actively will deliver.

As well as communicating “green” messages to consumers, automotive PR practitioners must lobby harder upwards internally - challenging the management to walk the talk, refusing to lobby rather than embrace the future. 

The environment is a global issue and it is madness to communicate messages of positive environmental developments in one part of the planet, whilst lobbying against standards elsewhere.  In a world of fast, open communications, lack of consistency is stupid and damaging. 

Global, consistent, personal and corporate responsibility is necessary if this industry is to change its reputation on the basis of real investment in new technologies and alternative fuels.

Yes, there is short-term money to be had in the US from continuing to sell gas-hungry trucks and sports utility vehicles - but the responsible position and longer term trend has to be for smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.  Without them, the future will be greater criticism with others generating effective solutions?

Public relations practitioners need to reflect the personal responsibility that Seth Godin advocates.  This means fighting against practices which see the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, set up a website (www.drivecongress.com) and a free phone number to encourage US drivers to lobby Congress against changing fuel efficiency standards.

Instead PR should be championing the demands of consumers and other stakeholders for better, more environmentally-sustainable personal mobility.  As Seth Godin asserts:

My point is that you have no right to market things you know are harmful or that lead to bad outcomes, regardless of how much you need that job…

If you get asked to market something, you’re responsible. You’re responsible for the impacts, the costs, the side effects and the damage.