For PR Pros, Are Rules Made to be Broken?

Posted on January 6, 2009 
Filed Under General | 1 Comment

“Rules are for other people.”

That’s what my father told me just before Christmas, when I questioned the legitimacy of his prime curbside parking spot in front of a shopping center packed with last-minute shoppers. He was joking (sort of), but the comment had a peculiar sense poignancy given the times we face in the earliest moments of 2009, as we look ahead at 360-odd days of almost-certain chaos. And I’m not implying that my dad operates under some anarchic, Blagojevichian philosophy (he acknowledges the difference between rules and laws).

But business–and the business of PR–might benefit from some maverick-style pushing of comfort zones. In many ways it already has, what with the increasingly accepted revisionist approach to communicating and engaging with stakeholders in untraditional (read: digital) ways. True, improvements have been made, but the status quo remains. What’s more, the main sticking point to leaders’ willingness to embrace change remains the same: fear of losing control.

Well, if 2008 taught us anything, it’s that control is long gone (and, for the most forward-thinking execs, already forgotten). The best thing leaders can do for themselves, their organizations and their stakeholders now is to cease clinging to the last wisps of corporate hegemony. That’s one of the reasons I wanted to step out from behind my editorial curtain for the length of one column to give my perspective on the proverbial state of the union, having spent many hours gathering intelligence from industry leaders. Most of my thoughts have some connection to my dad’s words of “wisdom,” if only in the sense that they suggest that many old-fashioned (and even new-fashioned) rules are hindering execs and organizations’ evolution. So, without further ado …

On Digital Communications

I could write an entire book on this topic (and I did), but it’s worth condensing the topic into a few key points. Many executives still fall back on traditional communications techniques–one-way delivery of force-fed messages–because there are rules attached to them. The conversational approach to engaging stakeholders via digital media seems lawless. “Bloggers don’t have the training to be considered legitimate news sources!” “Consumer-generated media has corrupted the high standards of journalism!” “People can say whatever they want about my client/company, even if it’s not true!”

The hardest part about this situation is that the solution is simple, but people are often too afraid to speak honestly and risk seeming mean. But I’ll take one for the team and state the solution in no uncertain terms: Get. Over. It.

If you are still dwelling on the fear that your brand will be demolished by the rules-don’t-apply style of modern communications, then you’ve missed the point entirely. You can’t change the inevitable effect of digital platforms on your business; you can, however, take comfort in the fact that online communications is self-correcting. If there is no truth in something, it usually fades. The best safeguard is a strong reputation, and that doesn’t always come from following the anachronistic rules of conduct.

On Talent Management

Generational conflicts are one of the biggest catalysts for the rapidly changing talent management landscape. Specifically, as Millennials move up the corporate ranks into management positions, their idiosyncrasies are permeating corporate cultures. Impatient, entitled, demanding, talented, creative and hard working, these employees are the illegitimate children of opportunity and angst. They want the world, but they also don’t seem to have a problem with going out and getting it. They also balk at rules they deem senseless. So, who’s right, the Millennial who wants complete laissez-faire management, or the manager who wants to set rules?

Neither. That’s the problem: We are in a state of limbo with regard to talent management and employee relations. A dismal economy, which decreases job security, tightens budgets and limits perks, puts senior managers in a difficult position. The natural reaction? To want to regain control. For junior staffers, this admittedly legitimate gesture seems staggeringly unfair. It raises so many questions: How do they plan to compensate me for my hard work? With widespread cost cutting, will I get a raise? If not, what else is in it for me?

PR News runs story after story urging communications executives to consider untraditional benefits that act as incentives for these complex creatures. This will be even more critical in 2009, when fewer perks will come in the form of monetary raises and bonuses. Strategies for assuaging the resulting internal strife:

These are just two broad topics that fall under the umbrella of communications, but they are two that I repeatedly hear industry leaders discussing. They are also leading the massive changes taking place within organizations. But if there is anything that can be learned from the past year’s trials and tribulations, it’s that rules do have a place in business, but that place has changed. Saying that rules are for other people may be flippant advice, but tweak the concept only slightly, and you’ll arrive at an old Latin phrase that, when translated, offers a compelling message:

Fortune favors the bold.

By Courtney Barnes

An Apple a Day …

Posted on December 17, 2008 
Filed Under General | 1 Comment

Clearly the old adage that “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” isn’t holding up for Apple’s financial health, which has taken repeated hits in recent months, the latest being a 2.5% decrease in stock value on Monday after analysts downgraded it. One could point to an ailing economy and penny pinching all around as the culprits but, when considered in the context of the massive stock price dip that followed a false announcement of celebrity CEO Steve Jobs’ heart attack in October, it’s hard to ignore the role leadership plays in keeping stakeholders coming back for more.

Now, news that Jobs will not be giving the keynote address at the annual Macworld Conference and Expo—a role he has filled with pomp and circumstance in years past—seemed to confirm the groundswell of suspicion regarding his health (he has battled pancreatic cancer) and, in turn, the health of the little brand that could. Jobs’ gaunt appearance at recent events already had people talking, and this doesn’t help.

But what about Apple spokesman Steve Dowling’s response to questions about Jobs’ reason for skipping the event? When directly asked if the cancellation was related to illness, Dowling responded, “Phil [Schiller, SVP of Marketing] is giving the keynote because this is Apple’s last year in the show, and it doesn’t make sense for us to make a major investment in a trade show we will no longer be attending.”

How’s that for a non-answer?  Maybe it’s just me, but I think stock value is more vulnerable when stakeholders’ concerns are deflected and they are faced with uncertainty. Plus, refusing to answer the question implies what everyone already believes, so why not confirm or deny? The non-answer strategy mirrors that of parents who respond to children’s “whys” with “because I said so’s.”

By Courtney Barnes

Limited Sunshine

Posted on December 15, 2008 
Filed Under General | 1 Comment

For the past few days the weather report in the print edition of the New York Times has promised “limited sunshine” for my county in NY.  Maybe “promise” is the wrong word; rather it is warning me of limited sun.  Granted, times are tough for our economy and it’s trickled down to friends and family for many of us, so maybe it’s good to frame the weather with a positive note of some sunshine, however limited.  Or would it better to just say Cloudy, as the Weather Channel has been forecasting and interestingly, the online version of the NY Times has been forecasting (the print and online weather reporters are apparently not conferring on terminology).  As I noted in my previous PR News blog post, much of what we hear is a story of some sort and how that story is heard depends on the state of mind and in life of the listener.  Personally, I’d rather hear Cloudy than Limited Sunshine. Better yet, I’d rather hear No Earthquakes, No Tsunami, No Volcanoes. But that might be putting too positive a spin on the story.  What would you prefer: Cloudy or Limited Sunshine?

What’s Your Story?

Posted on December 10, 2008 
Filed Under General | 1 Comment

Now more than ever, PR pros need to wear their storytelling hat. It’s the accessory you were given when you first started in PR and were told that Public Relations is about telling stories. Good PR is about telling stories well. Great PR is when your story becomes viral and unforgettable. In this chaotic economic climate, with the headlines about layoffs and downsizing dominating our attention, Public Relations is at the forefront of making sure that an organization’s messages are heard amid the noise and the doom and gloom. Unless your story is a good one, then you’ll be drowned out. Such was the message of Emily Callahan, who keynoted our PR News Nonprofit PR Awards luncheon at the National Press Club last week. As managing director of marketing communications for Susan G Komen for the Cure, Emily knows that the story of breast cancer victims and survivors is a powerful one and she makes no apologies for telling those stories time and again because these stories are real and they resonate. Like thousands of other nonprofits — and for the hundreds who were at the PR News awards breakfast on Dec. 4 — charitable giving is reaching crisis levels.  Nonprofits are now competing with each other for a piece of the charitable pie which has gotten smaller as large companies have scaled back considerably.  But everyone likes (and will respond to) a good story as Emily noted in her keynote speech.  So what’s the story you’re telling in the marketplace?

Please share your ideas on storytelling with PR News.

- Diane Schwartz

The BlackBerry & the Bedroom: Where Do You Stand?

Posted on November 30, 2008 
Filed Under General | 1 Comment

Do you love your spouse more than a toaster? How about a pencil holder? OK, how about your PDA: Who do you love more? And therein lies the nut graph of the press release from the PR team at Sheraton Hotels & Resorts. To raise awareness of their new Wi-Fi lounges that allow business travelers to stay more connected to family when traveling, Sheraton commissioned a “work/life study.” And 87% of respondents say they bring their PDA into the bedroom and 35% said they’d choose their PDA over their spouse.  What kind of question is that? A good one, from a PR perspective, even if the margin of error is roughly 34% in this case. And don’t forget - 66% choose their spouse over their PDA. This is just fun, attention-grabbing PR. I refuse to believe that one would choose their BlackBerry over their loved one. Barack Obama is choosing the White House over his Blackberry and I’m pretty sure he’d pick Michelle over the Blackberry (right?).

The nice part of this survey, in an effort to satiate all readers and media types who can grab a fun stat to confirm their convictions or to prove someone wrong, 84% of respondents in the survey did say that their PDAs actually enhance their ability to be with family since they can bring the “office” home with them. So, back to the point of Sheraton’s new press release — that their Wi-Fi/Internet lounges help people stay more connected to family when they’re on business travel.  Um, do business travelers really want to be more connected to their spouses? I am betting 35% of business travelers will be renting a movie in their hotel room instead, though 100% (an increase from the initial survey) will be bringing their PDAs into their (hotel) bedroom. This calls for a new press release from Sheraton. Kudos to Sheraton. I had fun reading this press release, and I’m writing about it here (while ignoring my spouse).

So, PR Newsers — what’s your take on this? Would you choose your BlackBerry over your spouse? Would you take a job take requires you to relinquish your BlackBerry? Share your thoughts — maybe we’ll turn it into a press release.

- Diane Schwartz

Dr. Jekyll, Meet Mr. Hyde

Posted on November 17, 2008 
Filed Under General | 3 Comments

In an article in this week’s issue of PR News, I wrote about a subject that I imagine is top-of-mind for many communications executives: hiring. But I wasn’t going for a how-to piece about recruiting strategies; rather, I was thinking about a few recent horror stories I heard from executives who interviewed a candidate for a job opening, swore it was a match made in heaven, and then found themselves in management hell when the new employee showed his/her true colors–and they weren’t pretty.

With the emergence of digital communications platforms, it’s much easier to learn about people beyond their handshake. Between blogs and personal profiles on social networks, some individuals leave very little to the imagination. But it’s still all too common for hiring managers to fall for a standing ovation-worthy performance at an interview and then realize the actor and his character are two very different people.

The article discusses strategies for minimizing the chances of ending up with a Mr. Hyde–from digital detective work to writing tests–as well as a few red flags to look for during the interview process. With that said, do any of you out there have suggestions for vetting job candidates? Any horror stories? If so, how did you undo the damage? Do tell!

By Courtney Barnes

Transfer of (PR) Power

Posted on November 11, 2008 
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment

With Barack Obama visiting the Oval Office yesterday for the first time and President Bush slowly transferring what power he has to the incoming leader, it makes me think about our own succession planning in PR.  A lot of PR executives talk about this and are even mandated to come up with a plan.  Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, there’s no public election for PR executives to lead a PR firm or a communications department.  So your succession plan is your organization’s best vote on who can hit the ground running and impact growth.  A long-time general manager of a PR firm told me recently that his succession plan was “definitely in the works.”  A head of a PR dept at a mid-sized company told me her successor is in the hands of HR.  In other words, she hadn’t really thought much about it. These two examples are of what not to do. If you are in any kind of management position, it’s time to start thinking about who can take over when you leave, whether your departure is voluntary or involuntary. A manager of mine nearly 15 years ago called it the “beer truck test” — if you got hit by a beer truck, who could handle your job from Day 1? Over the years, I’ve been a bit disturbed by her choice of trucks though we were a bunch of young journalists and we could relate to the alcohol analogy.  So, if you haven’t already, start thinking about who you’re grooming to step into your shoes, and who might be re-organizing the furniture in your office one day — whether you’re office is square or oval.

- Diane Schwartz

Voting for Eye Contact

Posted on October 28, 2008 
Filed Under General | 3 Comments

I am, like many others in this country, extremely popular during election season.  Just this morning, two people running for office next Tuesday were thrilled to meet me, were interested in how I was feeling, how things were going, and hoping I’d join them on election day to vote for, um, them.  Every one of them communicated with me without making eye contact and quickly moving on to the next person, without waiting for my answer (such as, I’m not fine actually. I have a headache and my coffee machine broke this morning. Thanks for asking.) These campaigners might be genuine people and possibly great representatives of my town, but they are committing a communications faux pas every time they ask dismissive questions.  Are you doing the same thing? When you ask people how they’re feeling — do you listen to their response? When you ask your boss or your client or your colleague how you can help them — do you really mean it?  When someone asks how you’re doing, do you dare to tell them the truth?  Now more than ever, we need to listen (to our customers, our employees, our friends) and engage in honest two-way communications. And don’t forget to make eye contact.

- Diane Schwartz

Talk Like You’re in a Fishbowl

Posted on October 23, 2008 
Filed Under General | Leave a Comment

There are at least four reasons most of us are not celebrities or famous athletes: talent, luck, timing and the fishbowl.  I will focus on the fishbowl for this post, because by pure force of timing I was reading the sports section of the NY Daily News on the subway (I usually don’t get to these pages but the train was delayed) and came across the story of the day re NY Jets QB Brett Favre dishing to the ex-Lions GM Matt Millen about his former team and Lions rival the Green Bay Packers.  Millen was hoping his friend Favre would share some of his 16 years of experience with the Packers to help Millen’s team (the Detroit Lions at the time) defeat the Packers.  You’re thinking, most likely: So What? We do this all the time, don’t we? If a friend or colleague needs information on a person or company for which you worked, will you share some insight? If your agency is about to compete against another agency for a big account, would you call your friend Joe who used to work at the agency holding the account for a little insight? Would  Joe share just a little something, all within the bounds of ethics and free speech? He probably would — but Joe is not a celebrity or an athlete and neither are you (presumably), so the encounter is unlikely to see the light of day.  Some of the players on the Packers are calling their former QB a traitor. Favre contends he didn’t dish any secrets, didn’t hand over the playbook. And perhaps he didn’t. His biggest mistake was not admitting at the very start that he spoke to since-fired Lions GM Millen back in September.  Perception is reality and the reality is that Favre does appear suspect (at least during this 24-hour news cycle) because he denied a conversation took place — at first. Time went by, the media rushed him, and he admitted a conversation took place.  The timing of his admittance was key to this story making headlines, but with any luck another sports scandal will break and “Lion Gate” will be yesterday’s news.  Though most of us don’t live in a fishbowl, Lion Gate is a reminder that it’s always prudent to watch what you say, who you say it to and who might be watching. That’s the “talent” part of being a savvy communicator and PR counselor.

- Diane Schwartz

Flack, Flak — Which Do You Prefer?

Posted on October 15, 2008 
Filed Under General | 18 Comments

It’s time for another sad story. At first blush, you might think I’m talking about AIG, because it is irresistible to report that after getting egg-faced over the $400kexecutive retreat in the midst of being handed a $122.5 billion government lifeline, four executives from the insurance giant went on an $87,000 partridge hunt last week. You are probably not surprised — I was not either (though shooting down partridges is not my style). What caught my eye — and what’s in it for YOU the PR person — is the way The NY Post reported on this story.

The reporter Kate Sheehy asked for comment from AIG, and here’s what she reported: “An AIG flak defended the trip, saying it was previously planned.” There are three things wrong with that sentence — that the trip was defensible; that Sheehy referred to the PR person as a “flak” and that Kate apparently missed Spelling class, when what really meant to type was “flack.”  Oddly, the word flak could work well with this story too, but I won’t digress.

Technically, most dictionaries will refer to flack as a press agent/spokesperson. But we all know it’s not the preferred name for a spokesperson, for a communicator, for a PR executive.  Yet it’s used all the time.  Whether behind your back or to your face.  It’s used informally and often without malice. It’s akin to journalists being called hacks, which technically, is not incorrect for many writers who “work for hire.”

The term, as used in the NY Post story, connotes a certain condescension for the PR trade. Perhaps if the unnamed spokesperson had given a better response to the reporter’s question, the story would have referred to the flack as a spokesperson or by their formal PR title. But the response to the media was lame.

So I end where I began — it’s a sad story — or a sad state of affairs — any time bona fide PR professionals (and I am assuming the PR dept at AIG is legit) are referred to as “flacks.”  The industry should not have to take such flak.

What do you think? Are you OK with this nickname?

– Diane Schwartz

Next Page →

Copyright © 2009 Access Intelligence, LLC. All rights reserved • All Rights Reserved.