I returned recently from the PRSA Counselors Academy to find this in the pile of press releases on my desk: "Microsoft's Legal Battle Hurt Company Image, According to GCI Study."
While the release admittedly got my interest, it also left me wondering "so what?" Given the omnipresent issue (how to position PR as a vital and critical business tool) driving the industry today and even dominating Counselors Academy, the GCI headline seemed anti-climatic, the conclusion facile. (The study was completed for GCI by Opinion Research Corp. International.)
"In the study, 59 percent of 1,003 adults said that they were aware of news coverage about the government's antitrust trial against Microsoft," read the release. "Of those who were aware of the news coverage, 31 percent said that the courtroom battle and its news coverage had a negative effect on Microsoft's reputation."
Imagine that.
First, the 41 percent who hadn't heard about the trial also probably don't know that the Berlin Wall was dismantled. Second, you'd be hard-pressed to find any plaintiff - even one who wins in court - convinced that a legal battle helps polish a company's image. Even PR granddaddy Edward Bernays would have a hell of a time spinning antitrust issues so that they revved up reputation capital.
A more interesting study would be one that measured and proved how Microsoft's PR strategies and communications tactics affected the company and its image during this ongoing legal battle. Months ago, I predicted that the Microsoft case would have a lasting negative impact on the company's image, not because of the case per se, but because the case could be seen as an extension of its oft-wielded elitism among audiences that aren't its direct customers.
Recall that Steve Brill has had a field day trying to make sense of the PR machine at Microsoft, granting them less than favorable editorial content (pun intended). If Microsoft's communications surrounding the legal case is typified by the response one of their corporate communications executives volleyed my way late last year, then no wonder the image plunder.
I had arrived at the Federal Courthouse in Washington to watch how Microsoft was handling the press. I approached the Microsoft communications exec there and asked to speak with him. I didn't ask for an interview about the legal merits of the case. I merely wanted to get some details about how a corporate PR department keeps "business as usual" when forced to devote countless hours, people and resources to answer press queries and have spokespeople on hand. He told me he saw no reason to speak with me, no benefit for Microsoft. So much for media relations savvy.
It's my belief that any time you fail to communicate with a member of a constituent audience, you're playing with fire. There are dozens of companies with damaged reputations as a result of inadequate or downright bad PR.
When Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap was running the show at Sunbeam, the corporation didn't even have a PR department. And when Eddie Bauer ignored a customer's complaint that later caught the media's attention, it had to use Edelman PR to pick up the pieces long after the incident.
An Ounce of PRevention
The PR industry is at a crossroads because it lacks the proof in bottom line numbers that make its value obvious.
It is ironic that although companies can easily see the measurable cost when effective PR is absent, those same companies apparently don't know how to recognize the results if they do have effective PR. It's the old chicken-and-egg metaphor: we don't truly know whether great companies pave the path for stellar communications or whether stellar communications sets the foundation for great companies.
One salient point in the GCI release underscored not only why you don't want to put a court battle on your corporate calendar for the year, but why reputation may be your most marketable asset. "Microsoft is one of the strongest corporate brands in the world," said GCI CEO Robert Feldman. "It is consistently ranked near the top of Fortune magazine's annual ranking of 'most admired' companies. The GCI study shows that even the best companies can be at risk in the courtroom, and particularly in a high-profile, well-publicized case."
Industry leaders and pioneers attempting to elevate PR as the cake, not just the icing, should always emphasize the effect that PR has on the bottom line. Historical data, measurement and advocacy by major players are the key to putting the importance of the PR industry in context.
Imagine the GCI study's impact if it had really analyzed the effectiveness of Microsoft's communications in the federal case.
Maybe that's why Microsoft avoided us. They were afraid we'd really have a story.