What price does PR pay for doing deals with the media?

News that Prince Harry is being redeployed from his 10 week tour in Afghanistan shows that the Ministry of Defence had a rather basic “plan B” in the event of media leaking the story.

From a public relations perspective, this has been an interesting situation – especially following the recent publication of Nick Davies’ book, Flat Earth News, which claims that the “media have become mass producers of distortion“.

In commenting on Davies’ views, CIPR president, Liz Lewis-Jones stated in a blogpost that she believed PR practitioners “have to be totally transparent” and “never lie” (with honesty being key to the Institute’s code of conduct).

The importance of integrity for the PR profession is underlined by research initiated by Davies (and conducted by Cardiff University) which found at least 80% of news stories in a sample of “quality” UK newspapers were “wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material, provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry”.

You cannot blame those in public relations for issuing information that is then re-published without independent verification by journalists – but it does raise important questions about whether organisations should use PR to take advantage of media’s current problems. 

In the case of Prince Harry’s deployment, it seems the media (not exclusively but predominantly UK-based) were complicit in “embargoing” the story in “exchange for getting regular pictures, video and text of his day-to-day activities once the planned four-month assignment was completed.”

Whether or not MoD press relations staff lied in this case, it surely cannot help improve the public perception of either PR or the media.  Although some people feel the case reflects badly on the media who revealed the story, others (notably Jon Snow) question whether the media should have kept the secret.

From the PR perspective, we can recall that last Summer, the MoD was criticised over allowing the “Iran sailors” to sell their stories to the tabloid press.  This time it appears that the price of a good story was a media blackout.  Despite having reportedly more than 1000 press officers, the MoD again seems to have not understood some of the basics of modern media.

Yes, deals can be done, but secrets cannot be kept.  Little harm seems to have been done in respect of the safety of Prince Harry, and even more importantly, his fellow soldiers.  We cannot realistically expect total transparency in respect of military matters, but doesn’t PR pay a price for seeking opacity?

Who cares about whether PR is part of marketing or not?

Last year CIPR introduced a new qualification, known as the Foundation Award in Public Relations for which I am the external examiner.  The course, at A-level standard, is designed for:

those considering PR as a career option; whether school-leavers, students or those already working in a different industry who would like to move into public relations.

The aim is to introduce the profession of public relations and develop key writing skills (such as producing a press release).  Within 15 hours of study, three Units are studied – the first being: Distinguishing PR Activities. 

This enables students to demonstrate an understanding of and differentiate between the concepts and practices of: public relations, marketing, advertising, publicity, public information, spin and propaganda. In addition, they will gain knowledge of key PR terms: publics, reputation, relationships, media relations, newsworthy, dialogue, mutual understanding, social responsibility, evaluation and communication.

The learning outcomes of the qualification include being able to “demonstrate an understanding of the way that public relations is placed within organisations (in terms of its relative position to the dominant coalition, budget share etc.)”.  Broad introductions are given to the specialist areas of “financial/investor public relations, lobbying, marketing PR (FMCGs) sponsorship, working in-house or in a consultancy and corporate social responsibility”. This Unit also covers “concepts such as relationship building, reputation management and working with publics”.

I mention this qualification, not only because I think it offers a great opportunity at an entry level for the profession – and those who work with PR functions, but because of a challenge issued by Geoff Livingston in response to a comment I made on his blog post: Strategic Marketers See PR as a Function » The Buzz Bin.

As requested, I have brought this discussion to Greenbanana, since Mr Livingston does not appear to want to consider opinions that differ to his own on his “turf”.  The view presented by Livingston Communications is that PR is entirely about influencing customers using “third parties they trust – the media, analysts, non-profit organizations and bloggers”.  That is, “to be effective, companies must intelligently influence buyers’ personal circles of trust.” 

Livinston is adamant that all PR is a sub-set of marketing, since motives of corporations are always directly or indirectly sales-oriented, and that all functions of PR are directed to protecting the brand and hence generating sales.

Of course not all organisations are sales-oriented, but let’s put aside the role of PR (or marketing) in the public or not-for-profit sector and consider the type of organisation that is 100% commercially oriented.

Six years ago, McDonalds bought a 33% share in the sandwich chain, Pret a Manger, from its founders for £25 million.  The price reflected more than the basic economics of generating sales from customers, even taking into consideration the brand values (or reputation) the smaller business had as being ethical and socially responsible.  McDonalds wasn’t even after a warm glow of “brand association” since the link between the two organisations has never been overt. Indeed, the relationship between the two called on PR’s risk management skills.

Last week, McDonalds and the Pret founders sold the business for £345m.  Hence, both parties profited more from this “corporate” exchange relationship, than from general customer sales.  Of course, organisations such as Pret need a PR function to support customer relations and sales, but they also need the profession’s strategic skills in working with other stakeholders and publics.

The reputation of Pret, which underpins its “market value“, is not simply a matter of focusing on generating sales.  It involves delivering on the brand promise, in operational terms and by  anticipating and managing issues of relevance to publics (not just markets). 

Even if you take the ultimate FMCG organisation, Coca-Cola, it recognises in its mission, vision and values, a purpose beyond generating sales.  Running any business is about more than simply producing income – you need to control costs, build and manage assets that add value, ensure relationships support rather than harm the business, avoid issues and crisis, motivate employees, invest in research and development, etc etc. 

At this level, I’m talking about finances and economics, which is where the motive of commercial corporations ultimately lie.  Sales is only part of that equation. 

Not surprisingly, Geoff Livingston cites the Johnson & Johnson Tylenol crisis as one of engaging PR to protect and enhance the brand to support ongoing sales.  Actually, in the Journal of Mass Media Ethics, [2005: 20(4), pp231–249], Pauly and Hutchison present this case as a “Moral Fable of Public Relations Practice” (alongside investigation of the Exxon Valdez case).  They note that general interpretations of this parable are reduced to simplicities, that the role of PR in crisis is simply to release information.  Indeed, the strategic role that PR (or marketing) should have played in anticipating the risk posed, is largely ignored in the retelling of the tale.

There is much more to protecting and enhancing “brands” beyond the worlds of either PR or marketing.  Good operational management and executive decision-making are essential.  Of course, communication before and during a crisis with those publics who have power, interest or influence is equally vital.  These may be politicians, activist groups, local communities, employees, financial analysts, etc etc. 

In engaging with any or all of these publics, the PR function will need to call upon trusted third parties as Livingston asserts.  However, seeing intermediary relationships simply as one-sided to achieve sales-goals for the organisation is risky.  To be effective, organisations need more than exchange relationships with influencers, they need to develop mutually-beneficial, communal relationships. 

Focusing solely on using communication to get what you want – especially if oriented towards short-term sales goals – is likely to be damaging in the long-term.  Society does not function exclusively to meet the sales objectives of corporations.  Laws and other societal pressures will be applied if businesses do not respect any motive other than their self-interests of generating sales revenue.

In many ways it does not matter whether the PR function sits within marketing, or marketing within sales, on an organisation chart provided communication with relevant parties with whom relationships need to be built, and reputation managed, is undertaken effectively.  In small organisations, such responsibilities may lie entirely with the senior management (who hopefully are competent in such matters).  Sales and marketing may be a single entity – or both may be sub-divided into specialisms.  Similarly, larger concerns may decide to establish distinct functions in respect of lobbying, financial relations, CSR, internal communications, media relations, etc. 

Ultimately, all functions need to work together rather than create mountains or valleys between them.  In subjugating any function to another, it is vital that the full capabilities of the sub-division are recognised.  So including marketing within sales might mean the benefits of building a brand are ignored in favour of short-term income targets.  Similarly, seeing PR only as part of the promotional marketing mix could mean the value of engaging with existing and potential publics is missed.

To respond to Mr Livingston’s direct criticism, I am not making a claim of “superior PR intelligence”, but believe that the strategic value of each and every function within an organisation needs to be understood and recognised, particularly by anyone who is offering communication consultancy services.

It also applies whether individually we are employed in a specialist technician or manager role within PR or marketing, or hold senior positions where the wider economic, political and other critical indicators of success are determined.

So, I support CIPR in ensuring that those entering the profession of PR have knowledge of a wide range of concepts and practice areas within a variety of organisations.  Practitioners should be clear that there is no simple rule to apply that PR should always be, or never be, a subset of marketing in corporations.

How PR practitioners should engage with social networking

Someone has just asked me offline for my tips for PR practitioners to engage with social networking sites.  Here is what I recommended:

• Don’t just be a lurker – social networking is about engaging in conversations, so be prepared to leave comments (only 10% of online users do, though)
• Monitor what is being said about you or the brand you represent using Google Alerts (http://www.google.com/alerts)
• Make full use of RSS feeds to bring the latest information to you rather than having to regularly visit your favourite sites for updates (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3223484.stm)
• Pro-actively manage your own, and your organisation’s online footprint – be aware of what is being said, and ensure there is accurate, reliable information available – and don’t ever post embarrassing photos.
• Look and learn online – there are some great resources that explain various technology, such as the videos from Common Craft at http://www.commoncraft.com/ which are plain English guides to online tools such as social networking, book marking and RSS
• Connect with others online – the point of networking is to make connections with colleagues, contacts and information resources
• Add value to your presence – what information can you share or offer that will be of use to others and help build your online reputation?
• Build your Google juice – this is what powers the search engines used by most people online. Blogging and participation in social networking can optimise your presence online and make what you have to say more prominent
• Manage your time – social networking is a great sucker of time so be purposeful in your use of online tools rather than aimlessly engaging with trivia, and look for smart opportunities to engage with the media, such as via mobile technologies
• Think multimedia – professional communicators use video and audio as well as the written word, so look out for useful podcasts and vcasts which you can download to an iPod or mobile phone to keep up with the latest online happenings.

What would you add to this list?

PR professionals to achieve Chartered Status

At last, we have an opportunity for PR professionals to set themselves apart from the “flacks” with news that the UK industry body, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations has obtained approval from the Privy Council and UK government, in principle, to extend its Royal Charter enabling individuals to apply for personal Chartered Status.

At present, the CIPR itself is a chartered body, which provides official recognition of the role of PR in society.  The benefit of personal Chartered status will be that individual practitioners will be able to demonstrate their commitment to the profession – and, I trust, gain recognition within employers and wider society.

Subject to a special resolution at CIPR’s AGM on 20 May to amend its Charter and a formal application to the Privy Council, it is expected Full Members and Fellows will be able to achieve Chartered Status from this Autumn.

In addition to a requirement for at least nine years’ practitioner experience (or seven years with successful completion of the CIPR Diploma), those seeking chartered accreditation will need to participate in continued professional development and submit a 6,000 word paper on a current practitioner issue to be reviewed by, and discussed with, a panel appointed by the CIPR’s Qualifications awarding body.

This certainly sounds like a robust process with the aim of creating “a cadre of leading practitioners whose availability will enhance CIPR’s status as one of the world’s leading professional bodies.”

I will certainly encourage my Diploma students, and colleagues in MIPAA who are also CIPR members, to register as soon as this is possible, and of course, seek chartered status myself.

CIPR members will be sent a full paper on the proposal in April – in the meantime, questions or comments can be directed to: Dawn Chapman, Head of Professional Policy – dawnc@cipr.co.uk

Do Heathers need better PR?

I’m not going to get involved in the recent PR bloggers’ spat about cliques, as I feel that would be, well cliquey.  However, as Geoff Livingston chose to illustrate Clique This! with a picture from the movie, Heathers, I feel a need to talk about name associations.

There are times when I’ve been accused of being intimidating, but the only associations with my name when I was at school were with the flower not some schoolgirl bullies (fortunately).  Today, we also have a character in Eastenders and the soon-to-be-ex Mrs Mills McCartney as “famous” Heathers.

Interestingly, I frequently get called Hazel, Helen, even Hayley, rather than my name.  When I travel, Heather is a name that many people find hard to say, especially in France (where I’m called Hezzer) and Germany.

The Telegraph recently reviewed popular baby names in the UK (link credit: Judy Gombita), highlighting the Muslim trend for using Mohammed (or variations of) as a common firstname (with the child known by its subsequent name).  

Looking at the Top 10 list for 2006,most of the names have echoes of the Victorian period.  Although my maternal grandparents’ names (they were born at the start of the 20th century) haven’t made a comeback (that’s Wilf and Ivy).

Our name is part of a personal brand, carrying with it various associations.  These could influence the way that others react to us from a young age. 

The Telegraph looks at the way babies’ names are affected by “the cult of celebrity” – with 38 tots called Cruz (after David Beckham’s third child) and 14 Peaches (after the daughter of Bob Geldof).  It is hard to imagine that, as adults, these children won’t have some embarrassment about their monikers.

Undoubtedly, we all stereotype people by their names – especially before we’ve met them.  A recent email exchange between the CIPR Diploma class at Reading, included the tutor’s observation on media views of PR fluffies:

I was talking to a national journo friend who was berating London PR agencies – they seem to have all fogged within his brain and he referred to a made up organisation where he spoke with “Lucinda of Chew Mine PR”. He feels that all agency PROs have unlikely first names like Porsche or Persephone and they are representing ‘ridiculous ‘companies with names like ‘wild monkey’ and ‘red fish squared’  – why would he take these guys seriously? Could it be that the PR industry is still misrepresenting itself?…But why?

So do I need to start a PR campaign for better representation of Heathers?  Or should PR industry bodies investigate whether the industry needs an injection of serious folk called Joan or Mary (or is that a stereotype too)?  What do you think about “trendy” agency names?  Can I be taken seriously with the “greenbanana” concept?  Are these labels really that important?

Bridgestone GP2 E-Reporter – a challenge for new/social media outreach

Yesterday I ran a New/Social Media training day at Jardine International, where our focus was on helping clients recognise how to integrate relevant online developments into their PR campaigns.

As well as covering off a lot of the online jargon and techniques – for which the Common Craft plain English videos (and my own unique “glossary”) are hard to beat – we talked about how brands could be seen as genuinely interested in social networks, provide interesting multimedia and avoid generating the type of negative cyber-buzz that would make clients run for the virtual hills.

One thing I found interesting was how, as PR professionals, we have learned to adopt a style of writing and thinking that no longer comes across as human.  It is a little like the way you see television presenters talk to children, in that online the “artificial” PR-way seems quite cheesy.  It was very helpful to undertake exercises that enabled a real voice to be heard and break ourselves of the PR-habit.

PR practitioners are not alone in their approach to writing, as organisations generally seem to adopt a style of communications that bears little resemblance to how real people engage.  Indeed, I received a really expensive looking mailing piece in the post recently from a car company that was so over-stylised, it was an instant turn-off. 

The need to communicate in a genuine fashion is particularly relevant for one Jardine project – the Bridgestone GP2 E-Reporter.  This is a competition open to students, aged 18-30, in full time education anywhere in Europe.  Appealing for “young journalistic talent”, eight finalists will win the chance to attend a European Formula One Grand Prix weekend to report on the Bridgestone-backed GP2 series.  The deadline for submitting a 300 word article and interview questions is 31 March 2008.

So, how best to use new/social media to reach out to journalist, PR and other students who might be interesting in the great prize?  During the lunch-break yesterday, a Facebook group was set up and previous winners immediately responded to a request to be friends in the group.  We identified two specialist automotive journalist courses, and have made contact with the tutors there.

Opportunities to promote the previous winning entries, identify footage for YouTube and connect into online student groups and advocates were identified.  But what more can the guys do?  This is a real-life challenge that I will present to my Bournemouth University seminar groups over the next couple of weeks as we look at PR and new media.  Not only might this opportunity stimulate a few ideas for the Jardine guys, but it will give me greater insight into how the students themselves interact with new/social media.

As “digital immigrants”, can we really understand how “digital natives” use new/social media? How can we tap into appropriate word of mouth, without coming over as “big business”? 

I’ll let you know what I discover – but in the meantime, if you know anyone who’d love a shot at becoming an E-Reporter – direct them to: http://www.bridgestone-ereporter.eu/ereporter/

Porsche’s bold PR move, planning and embargoes

I am not the greatest fan of embargoes on press releases, especially if they are used as a matter of routine.  But I was interested to note a 9.00am embargo on the release yesterday from Porsche its plans to:

start judicial review process against Mayor and Transport for London over unjust 3000% congestion charge increase.

The reason for my surprise is that BBC Radio 4 Today carried an interview on the news story before the embargo time.  It makes sense in planning terms to target this agenda-setting programme, but then what does a 9.00am embargo mean for daily newspapers? 

Many have run the story today, with the Telegraph, for example, issuing it at 1.00am this morning.  The BBC ran it online from 12:53 yesterday. 

The story has already gained international momentum, and could be seen as a bold move, particularly in the motor industry, where it is more common for the trade body, SMMT, to be involved in expressing collective opinions on such matters. 

Also, when you have a very strong brand, raising your head above the parapet of public opinion, could be a risky move.  Another factor in this case, is that Mayor Ken relishes the chance to increase his own hot air quota in respect of taking on a luxury car maker.  The Guardian quotes:

The mayor, who is running for re-election in May, said he was amazed Porsche had decided to intervene and described the decision by the company’s chief executive, Wendelin Wiedeking, as a PR disaster. “The idea that a German businessman who earns £50m a year should interfere in this when Londoners will have their chance to decide on May 1 is quite incredible,” he said.

An interesting anti-German response, when the press release clearly shows the action is being instigated by  Porsche Cars GB, whose MD, Andy Goss is quoted.

I think the story raises an interesting point that we’ve been discussing in relation to plans within MIPAA to hold a high level PR conference towards the end of this year.  We’ve been discussing a STEP framework whereby a major issue, likely to be the environment this year, is analysed and tackled against the four key dimensions of socio-cultural, technology, economic and political. 

From the economic perspective, we are looking at the argument missing in the current focus on environmental motoring in relation to the costs of developing new technologies, against a political background of fiscally driving consumers into small, low-price, low emission entry models.  The cost of investment in technological advancements is normally borne by wealthier customers and their expensive niche, premium priced vehicles before such innovations are transferred into the more mainstream models.

Mass market customers seem unwilling to pay extra for “green”, so manufacturers are needing to invest without additional return to demonstrate their environmental social responsibility.  If higher end goods, such as sportscars, are to be driven out of the market because they cannot match the same environmental standards, then where does the money come from to invest in innovative technology?

For luxury brands like Porsche, these issues are obviously critical to their future survival, and so it is right for the PR practitioners to advise on strategies to engage stakeholders in understanding potential consequences.  It will be interesting to see what the communication outcome of proposing this legal challenge will be. 

Matchstick messaging

At the end of January, autobild.de wrote about Michael Arndt who has spent 6000 Euros and six years building a full scale Mercedes-McLaren F1 car in his kitchen using 956,000 matchsticks and 1686 tubes of glue.

Sufficiently quirky to be picked up by Autoblog but not until 13 February. A few days on and the matchstick message has gone global. Sadly there is no video on YouTube, but I suppose when he opened his first box of matches, Herr Arndt couldn’t have anticipated how speeded up footage of his unusual hobby would have made interesting video for millions of online viewers.

PR lessons in oral presentation

Intrigued by the story from the Qualifications & Curriculum Authority regarding ending oral GCSE language exams for being “too stressful”, I am surprised to find nothing about the topic on the organisation’s website. 

Indeed, the press release area on the site does not seem to link into topics that appear regularly in the media in relation to the body, instead being a rather dry list of “announcements”.

This is at odds with an attempt to be “relevant” in offering QCA announcement videos at YouTube – billed (somewhat misleadingly) as “exciting video content”.  Hard to believe that anyone really will watch these dull presentations recorded at last week’s annual review.

Clearly no-one in the PR department at QCA has thought about giving public relations training to the executives to make their oral presentations more interesting.  Or maybe they’d find that all a little “too stressful”.

When press agentry can land you in court

yumfoot.com reports that low cost airline, Ryanair to close its website for three days – at a financial cost of £20 million (according to the Times).  Despite speculation that the move is to finally respond to Office of Fair Trading orders to ensure prices cited are fully inclusive of taxes and other charges, the standard press agentry response from the company is that it is simply expanding the website’s capacity.

The company, as recently posted, is famed for its adversarial PR approach to stakeholders (enabling linkages) and it wouldn’t suit its macho image to look like it is responding to such external pressures.

Ryanair has arguably been very successful as a result of an aggressive press agentry strategy that counters the “excellent” PR approach of developing stakeholder relations and protecting a positive reputation.  However, with the airline itself predicting profits are likely to be severely impacted by the current economic climate (and as Ryanair claims, government policies), it may begin to realise why other organisations put co-orientation over confrontation.

The OFT itself has been criticised for its approach to public relations, with a high court judge attacking the organisation for engaging in “public relations exercises” and trying to attract “sensationalist publicity”

Indeed, supermarket Morrisons has begun a libel action against the OFT based on a press release, which has also been criticised by Tesco.  Mr Justice Davis summed up his views:

“The original press release seems to me to illustrate the dangers of bodies such as the Office of Fair Trading engaging in public relations exercises designed or calculated to attract potentially sensationalist publicity via the media,”

Putting PR in the dock seems to be increasingly common – see the PR Conversations post regarding the US Federal Court case debating whether PR is in fact racketeering.

These cases highlight increased recognition of the power of PR – further emphasising why even the supposedly simply tactic of drafting a press release should not be undertaken without wider understanding of the business implications of such public communications.