For companies involved in corporate social responsibility, the conversation is quickly changing -- and communication execs need to get up to speed.
With a plethora of new governmental regulations for companies to follow, constant calls for "transparency" and public cries for better corporate behavior, the old rules for
setting up CSR campaigns no longer apply. If the plan is half-baked, the company is liable to get fried by the press or the public - or both. Moreover, as a Cone Inc. study on
corporate citizenship released last summer stated, the public not only expects companies to address social needs they want companies to tell them how they are doing this, which is
where communications executives come in.
"Historically, companies have said 'Trust Us' when it came to CSR," says Chris Deri, who runs Edelman's Stakeholder Strategies unit. But with the public growing somewhat numb
to corporate scandal, invoking the term "trust" is a difficult word for corporations to pull off these days without backing it up with some concrete plan or results. "Now the
message from outside audiences is, 'Show Us,'" says Deri, who oversees Edelman's pro bono relationship to the United Nations Global Compact and is a participant in its "The Role
of the Private Sector in Zones of Conflict" dialogue network.
"We're talking about having ethical/sustainable CSR programs, with a lot more R&D and a greater vertical integration throughout the whole company," Deri says. "Pursuing CSR
strategies, but not providing transparency for outsiders to confirm activities and results, leaves the company largely in the same position as a competitor who has chosen to
ignore the issues."
Kathleen Moazed, PR director for Fenton Communcations, which primarily works with non-profit groups, including Artists United to Win Without War and the Polly Klass Foundation,
says when companies mount CSR programs they need to look at their internal strategy and ask themselves whether they're prepared to deal with the many issues tied to CSR, such as
international labor rights, human rights and environmental standards.
"A lot of companies are behind the curve and have no idea how to reach out to reporters covering these international and domestic issues," she says. "The cost of not being able
to respond [to CSR] is very high. You can lose market share and can be blindsided if you're not prepared."
Assembling a task force is Job One to putting together a CSR strategy. Of course, companies have different objectives for their charitable programs.
But communications execs contacted by PR NEWS say there are several fundamental principles for CSR task forces to follow, starting with a CEO mandate. Indeed, without a strong
mandate from the C-suite, the CSR program is likely to languish.
"It's important to create a program that doesn't operate in a vacuum but has a real team from the get-go," says Nikki Korn, vice president of Cause Branding at Cone Inc.
Clients include Capital One, Chevrolet and ConAgra. "There is a notion that the task force members become ambassadors" to the CSR program.
The task force also "needs to figure out what the short-term and long-term objectives are, but be in it for the long haul," Korn adds. "Some companies look to execute or hold a
promotion but it's more important for a sustainable, long-term project."
Since 1999, Cone Inc. has been helping Chevrolet with its philanthropic efforts, and in August 2000 designed a program to leverage 50 years of existing community support from
the automaker's 4,100 dealers. The program, called "Chevy R.O.C.K." ("reaching out to communities and kids,") encourages eligible dealers in 23 markets to apply for matching
grants for non-profit organizations who serve underprivileged 6-18 year-olds. Chevrolet is gradually expanding the program. (Chevy R.O.C.K. won a 2002 CSR Award from PR NEWS.)
In addition, Chevrolet sponsors Students Against Violence Everywhere, a school-based peer-to-peer violence prevention program. Since the program launch there have been more
than 110 million media impressions.
"Over time, we hope to build a national story, but it starts with how the dealers are reaching out to local communities," Korn says.
The best practices for setting up a CSR task force is to keep them relatively small, 10 people tops, since large forces can become unwieldy. Task force members need to feel a
sense of ownership for the project -- but that the decision-making process must rest with a senior executive who'll champion the cause.
"The task force leader has a challenging role," Korn says. "He or she needs to lead the team to a place where they can create some real vision. It's important for the team
leader to keep the task force engaged in appropriate decision-making and that senior management is involved, and that's a tough balance."
Deri echoed Korn's comments. "You need to involve people who are empowered enough to collect and understand the data of the company's operations." He added that the driving
force of PR task forces involved in corporate social responsibility should be "empirical" and not just "aspirational."
This means setting targets for the campaign or project, collecting data, making projections, estimating returns and then executing the plan. Deri also stressed that task forces
should be careful to listen but not be solely reactive to likely critics of the project, such as community groups, NGOs and the media.
How CSR task forces are ultimately organized should be left to each company's culture. But all companies, Deri says, need to take a proactive and communicative approach to CSR
issues or "they risk being defined around these issues by people other then themselves."
Commonly Used Metrics for PR Measurement
Article Counts
Assesses numbers of placements or mentions.
PROS: Fast and relatively easy.
CONS: Very simplistic. Does not differentiate between number of persons reached or article size
Audience Impressions
Assesses potential reach of a story placement or activity; typically "circulation" or readership" figures for print, "gross impressions" for broadcast; unique page views for
internet, etc.
PROS:
- If audit data from Arbitron, Nielsen, SRDS, and other 3rd party media research firms is used, the numbers provide a baseline against which to measure over time.
- Widely used throughout all marketing and communications fields.
CONS:
Does not differentiate by amount of coverage; a one-inch mention counts the same as a feature story.
- Audit data has been expensive and difficult to obtain.
- Quantitative with little qualitative refinement.
- Impressions does not hold significant meaning to management.
Ad Value Equivalencies (AVE) or Media Value
Assesses the market value of the particular space or time occupied by a story placement, or a portion thereof. AVE is now being referred to as "Media Value," and used as
an index over time.
PROS:
- Reflects story size, impressions, and the perceived image or credibility of a media outlet.
- Provides metric as a dollar value; easily understood by management, especially coverage across media types.
- Effective if used as an index measured over time or in comparison with competitors.
- New term "Media Value" being adopted to decrease the comparison between advertising & PR.
CONS:
The term, "Ad Value Equivalency," implies a direct comparison between ads and editorial, which are apples and oranges.
- Audit data with negotiated rates has been expensive and difficult to obtain.
- Easy to misuse claiming PR success based on delivering low-cost media values.
Source: SDI/PRtrak
Contacts: Pat Donohue; 215.273.7809; [email protected]; Gary Getto, 610.834.0800; [email protected]; Julie Gladu, Schneider & Associates; 617.646.3303; [email protected]; Katie Paine, 603.431.6967; [email protected]; Mike Lawrence,
617.272.8328; [email protected]