Public relations and managing reputation

In this, the first of a series of posts on aspects of working in public relations, two of Australia’s leading PR recruiters are interviewed. In future posts, an experienced agency head, an in-house communicator and a young practitioner at the beginning of her career will provide their perspectives on what it takes to excel in PR.

If social media is one of the ‘must-have’ skills of a contemporary public relations professional, doesn’t that mean the professional should be a credible ‘player’ in social media themselves? After all, isn’t the best example of competency actually walking the talk?

Perhaps not, at least not yet, according to two of the leading public relations recruiters in Australia, Richard Whitington and Di Treble from Talent2. It is not often you get senior, industry-leading recruiters talking about their craft and the principles and approaches that underpin their methodologies, so this interview with them both provides timely insights.

These insights are relevant not just to whether PR pros should be going gangbusters in social media to help them develop their career, but highlight some basic principles underpinning career development in public relations.

Note that all the comments in quotation marks that follow are the combined response of Richard and Di to my questions.

What it takes to work in public relations

What characteristics does it take to work in PR?

• “A genuine interest in current events and trends (even if it’s just in your area of specialty) and the media (in all its forms) and how it is evolving
• An enquiring mind and, for the most part, an ability to put yourself in your audience’s shoes;
• An ability to simplify the complicated, quickly
• Integrity and trustworthiness – without personal credibility, you’re worthless (as in any other calling)
• Strong project management and high level organisational skills
• Excellent written skills (including grammar and punctuation!)
• An ability to deal confidently with senior people  including clients, stakeholders and the media
• To create exciting campaigns that are interesting to the media and the target audience.”

 Qualities required to be an excellent PR professional

What are employers looking for when hiring public relations professionals? What are the key technical skills (e.g. media relations) that experience is most highly valued in and what strategic mindsets are coveted?

 “All of the above. Strategy is an overused and misused word. Strategy should be no more complicated than understanding big picture objectives and operating in the context of those, from a communications perspective, as well as in terms of budgeting and time management.”

What skills, attributes, knowledge, attitude are needed for working in-house, compared to the PR agency environment, and vice versa?

 “In-house is likely to demand a more ‘corporate’ mindset and involve higher level stakeholder management (sometimes in an environment where the communications function is not understood/appreciated).

 “Agency is likely to be more ‘commercial’ and generally requires a greater ability to multi-task and adapt quickly to varied personalities (internally and externally) and cultures; and to be able to switch from one industry to another. 

 “Both require the confidence to counsel people who are more senior than you.”

 Social/online media and getting ahead in PR

What role does a PR professional’s presence in social media have in getting them a job? For instance, how important is it to have a good profile on LinkedIn? What value to a PR career is there is being engaged on Twitter? Does it give those who are more engaged an advantage?

“Clearly, there can be no harm in having a ‘profile’, provided it’s in the appropriate circumstances and you’re keeping good company. At the risk of sounding overly conservative, there are risks in social media.

 “Good PR (even for yourself) involves risk management. Once you lose control of ‘the company you keep’ (beware of guilt by association) and who manages the faithful and accurate distribution of your views and information, you’re in potentially dangerous territory.

“There’s a distinction to be made between recruitment consultants and in-house recruiters. The latter may tend to scan social media for leads and insights, which is fine.

 “We at Talent2 use sources like LinkedIn that can provide some detail about people, but it is just one slice of the full picture we are forming. Obviously, we also rely on the CV a candidate sends us, our telephone screening of them, our interviews and discussions with them, our market knowledge and expertise, consulting trusted sources and the formal, on-the record reference checks we conduct, to build a complete profile. We also check the academic and professional qualifications of all candidates we place.”

Once a person has posted information on the internet, is it ethically fine for employers or recruitment agencies to check it out? How has the notion of privacy changed in the internet age, as to what it is permissible for employers/recruiters to examine as part of a candidate checking methodology?

“If it’s in the public domain, it’s fair game, particularly if the individual concerned is responsible for the information being there.

“To answer this question completely, we need to understand the difference between ‘search’ and ‘executive selection’.

“The latter involves processing ad response, as well as database and market search. During the initial screening process of ad response, recruiters tend not to look at anything beyond the CVs in front of them, relying on their market knowledge and understanding of the client’s brief, to make some initial judgements.

“Once we’ve selected candidates to interview for a role we might look online to further check out a candidate. We might also do it after the interview, perhaps prompted by what we’ve discovered in the discussion with the candidate. It tends to be in relation to candidates who may have been associated with high profile events or people, where the role may involve government relations, or perhaps investor relations.

“The ‘search’ methodology can involve gathering information from a very broad range of sources before actually approaching a candidate. At Talent2, we still tend to gather information from trusted sources – people we know – rather than go to sites or sources whose veracity we can’t rely on.

“We would be most unlikely, for instance, to discuss with a client (employer) something we’d unearthed on the web about a candidate we might be interested in approaching, without first investigating the reliability of what we’ve found online – by interviewing the person and making up our own mind.  Apart from anything else, the client could have made that enquiry themselves, so we’re not adding much value if we simply quote slabs from social media or other web sources.”

Since the emergence of social media, have expectations of public relations employers changed? How? Is it expected of every PR practitioner to have had some experience in social media, even if only on a personal level?

“Social media is a much hyped trend right now and who could argue against a communications professional having a big interest in it? Let’s see how it evolves and whether it stands the test of credibility. As a mandatory qualification for winning a role – no, only rarely, so far.”

What do you think about what Richard and Di have said? Do you agree that it isn’t that important for a PR professional to be credible and active in social media to position themselves favourably for roles? What do you think about the point about ‘risk management’ and ‘guilt by association’? And what about the issue that everything you put online is out in the public domain and is therefore fair game? Are you concerned that your private ‘play’ is inappropriately mixed up with your public ‘professional’ face to the world? What can you do about it?

PS. I’d welcome you joining networks with me through my LinkedIn profile. Send me an invite!

Tweet This Post

Whilst I believe that ex-journalists are not qualified and do not have the relevant experience to suddenly become the head of the organisational public relations function, they also have the potential to be great PR function heads, for a number of very valid reasons.

But first they need to be educated on what constitutes public relations, including its strategic dimensions and its underlying academic rigour. And, secondly, they need experience in a hands-on capacity so they understand the tactical breadth of the discipline.

Journalists are great writers

The most obvious reason why ex-journos can be excellent PR pros is that they should be very good writers who write compelling content. Writing is the most important tactical characteristic of public relations. It’s even more important than being a nice person and pleasant to work with. Without this skill you can’t work effectively with the media, for one, but nor are you able to undertake the other elements of public relations to any great effect.

A challenge in the writing dimension, however, is the diversity of mediums that a PR pro needs to write for: chatty newsletters and brochures, rat-a-tat-tat digital media, white papers, media releases op-eds etc. Each need a different approach taken. But, still, a decent ex-journo should be able to deal with this.

An ex-journos’ experience in the following elements should also stand him or her in good stead:

• The importance of fact checking and issues research
• Looking beneath the surface of a story or issue to get to the crux of the matter being communicated on; identifying the drivers behind the issues; determining what is authentic
• Being able to identify the most interesting elements of a story/issue and engaging with readership/target audience/stakeholders.

The irony of this is, of course, is that whilst a PR pro operating in a leadership capacity edits fairly often, they aren’t being paid to write a lot (for external consumption, anyway – their writing is more communication strategy and senior internal stakeholder-targeted in nature.) Writing is for those less experienced. It is simply better ROI for the organisation.

Pressure cooker journalism

Journalism is often an extremely pressurised job, one that involves delivering quality, and often complex, content in a short timeframe. It also involves being aware of political, high-level issues and the ramifications of those issues. This gives journalists an excellent background for crisis communication and crafting messages and other content for stakeholders such as politicians and C-suite executives.

The intensity of working for the media also means journalists develop a tenacity and toughness. Either that or they go home in a screaming mess. Tenacity is valued in any profession or field of endeavour, but toughness is a double-edged sword.

Empathy is a very useful characteristic in strategic communicators. We need to be sensitive, as do organisations, to the needs of stakeholders. Toughness, inherently, can lead to a reduction of trust and working together to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. So whilst not necessarily a ‘bad’ thing, it needs to be judiciously applied.

Strategic high-level communication

There are fundamental characteristics of public relations that journalists should be good at delivering, at a strategic and conceptual level:

• Empowering the marginalised; giving voice to the voiceless (thus helping develop social equity; one of the most meaningful and rewarding dimensions of being a public relations professional)
• Embracing of a plurality of perspectives (e.g. balanced reporting)
• Tolerance (e.g. giving a voice to those who may not be of the social majority and who may be socially marginalised)
• Thought leadership (this is what editors/producers want to see and it is a characteristic that assists with an organisation’s branding).

Senior journalists have numerous connections in high places (government, corporate, NFPs, industry associations etc). These connections can assist an organisation in aspects such as lobbying and facilitating strategic alliances all of which can help achieve communication and business objectives, sometimes by minimising awareness of certain issues impacting on organisations and sometimes by raising awareness of an organisation, the issues it is facing and its products or services.

Journalists are also being forced more and more to face the demon of two-way communication through the media’s seeming inexorable shift into the treacherous domain of social media. Organisations are in a similar position. PR pros are way ahead of the media in this area, but there are no doubt a number of journalists who have both skills and a strategic capability in this area.

The ‘truth’

I dislike ex-journos being parachuted into head of PR function roles. They don’t have the training, the strategic nous or the leadership skills to effectively undertake such a role. It happens with ex-politicians as well, but that’s a story for another day.

Organisations are blinded by the perceived power of yesterday’s hero – traditional media – when they make such appointments. They will be better served if they rely on strategic communication professionals that possess the proven acumen and creativity needed to be the best possible leader of an organisation’s relationship management (i.e. PR) team.

If journos want to get into PR, get a PR education and build their way up, thus getting an understanding of the subtleties, knowledge and skills of the profession – great!. Much smarter way to go. Actually, hang on, that’s me!

Journalism and public relations: bed partners

After producing an initial draft of this article, I posted a couple of discussions on LinkedIn in groups like Public Relations Professionals, Corporate Communication, PR Professionals and the Public Relations Institute of Australia (here is the first and here is the second).

Most that responded were ex-journos, most were defensive in character and most could not tear themselves away from a seeming obsession with media relations. Hey guys, we do more than that!

In the main, the two-way symmetrical, relationship building and accommodation aspect of public relations was ignored. The broader strategic capability and multi-tactical design, management and implementation issues took a low profile.

I found this disturbing. But I also found it enlightening. Having said that, there were numerous comments which shone a unique and insightful light on the symbiotic and incestuous relationship between journalists and public relations professionals. Funny too.

And on this issue, I think that’s a good idea: keeping a sense of humour. Because as different as the two professions are, they are and will remain for some time to come (until that social media harlot usurps journalism entirely) partners in passion, partners in crime and partners in compromise.

But let’s leave the final word to David Meerman Scott, who in his New Rules of Marketing and PR (Second Edition), has some very positive words to say about journalists in this Web 2.0 world: “one of the best ways to create great web content is to actually hire a journalist…[they] are great at understanding an audience and creating content…it’s the bread and butter of their skill set…what better person could there be for running your online media efforts?’

Did you agree with those notions I captured here? What do you think, and what is your experience of, journalists who have been parachuted into head of PR functions? Do you think that it’s great news to have ex-journos working in public relations? What have you learnt from them? and if you are an ex-journo working in PR, why the switch and what do you think about the reality of the profession compared to your thoughts before switching to the ‘side of light’?

PS. I’d welcome you joining networks with me through my LinkedIn profile. Send me an invite!

Tweet This Post

In the process of putting together a post on why ex-journalists should not be ‘parachuted’ into the head of the organisational public relations function, I started a discussion in a few LinkedIn groups. The responses were mainly defensive in character and most could not tear themselves away from a seeming obsession with media relations.

I posted an initial collection of comments on this discussion on why ex-journos should not head the PR function last week. Here is part two. I hope you enjoy them. I did!

PR is full of those who can’t strategise

“As an “ex-journo” who has successfully headed a number of large corporate PR functions and has interviewed a lot of weak PR job candidates over the years, I could easily write a piece on why some PR people should not head the PR function. Our profession is still full of folks who can’t strategize, can’t write and don’t know how to find and formulate a story, much less pitch one. A lot of those abilities are developed through journalism experience at a high quality news organization with high standards.”

David Fluhrer

Public and Investor Relations Advisor, various organisations

Unlike old dogs, journalists can learn new tricks

“I think journalists who make a career switch mid way are, more often than not open to the idea of learning something new. Of course, there are exceptional cases of journalistic ego getting bigger than the boot, but most of the time I have found them adapting to the new realities very fast.

“The experience of working on various beats also gives them a cutting edge. And it is not just with the Corp Comm, they have excelled in various other management jobs as well, at least in this part of the world there are various case studies.

“I am yet to meet a client whose PR basket is not 70 per cent Media Relations centric. As far as debate is concerned, it is like a chicken and egg syndrome. What is the point of strategy if it can not be implemented, and what will you implement if there is no strategy as to why and what do you want to communicate? And yes, those without a media background would love to believe that journos are alien to strategy. IT IS NOT.”

Ravi Sinha

CEO, TRACK2MEDIA

Don’t mention the war…

“I think that PR people that have been journalists in the past are like retired soldiers. They will never forget about the war they had to have with the public relations specialists they interfered in their careers.”

Paul Dumitru

Journalist, MONEY Express

Journalists really, truly do ‘get’ strategy

“I believe an ex-journo, with proper, comprehensive PR training is in invaluable asset for an organization. He or she will ensure that detailed communication plans are in place for each activity of an organization and know what to watch out for to avoid turning a problem into a crisis. My 15 years of experience and training as a journalist has led me to pay attention to details; my PR training has allowed me to focus on the right ones.”

Gyula Kovacs

Coordinator, Communications, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada

It’s a big PR world out there

“…media relations is an important subset of public relations, but it’s not the entire operation. A PR pro needs to understand marketing, sales and customer relations, as well as writing. I know some outstanding writers who could never be PR people — it’s just not in their makeup. Others excel.”

Stephen Lawton

Owner / Consultant, AFAB Media Services

Journos’ skills sharpened by the ‘wars’

“… as a former Newsie, I have found that my News room acumen has been the reason for the best success in my PR years. No one can know the mind of a journalist unless one was/is one. It is a private world best cracked by one of their own. No better way to create or nose out or pitch a story than to have had to have reported on stories for REAL….if it paid better, I’d go back to TV or radio news for good! THAT was a blast of a job, I have always loved it.”

Sonya Snyder

CEO & President, Quill Communications, Inc

PR is more than pitching to media

“As a former journalist who moved into PR, I’d like to add that, IMO, most reporters do not have the skills to instantly move into being an account executive at a PR agency.

“Being an A/E is about more than simply knowing how to write well and how to pitch. You need to know how PR plans are structured and created, how to devise strategies and tactics, do competitive analyses, and measure PR. You need to learn the subtleties of public speaking so you can advise clients in the public spotlight on their communication styles. If you have to write speeches, you will find that the rhythms of the spoken word are more complex than the written, and require mastering different skills. (Not the least of them being actual rhetoric.)

“You also have to be able to manage clients, junior account staffers, contractors and subcontractors. At some smaller agencies, A/Es are expected to be headhunters that pitch and secure new clients, so a fair amount of hard selling can be involved.

“However, if two candidates have otherwise equal qualifications except for their major-journalism experience (or lack of it), I’ll be more interested in the former journalist–assuming she really can communicate well.

“But I’ve known some big-city journalists whose writing skills are so shockingly poor that the only reason their stories appear coherent at all is due to diligent copy editors.”

Steven Spenser

Principal, Praxis Communication/Seattle

“Our responsibility to our clients and our companies (if internal) is to COUNSEL clients on the ways of the world. The best PR practitioners I know don’t make it in the world as ‘yes people’.

“Media relations is but one avenue to pursue, but we all know there are scores of other things we can do.

I am still amazed to this day how many prospective clients think PR is media relations. So rather than fight it, I embrace it by counseling clients to first review the infrastructure of their PR plan. That one little nugget has made clients recognize they’re not ready for even media relations activity.

“ In fact, we take the infrastructure’ debate one step further by asking them to see how tight their entire communications suite is, and how ‘ready’  they are for going to market. Bottom line–let’s reinforce what we do as counselors; do that, and you win the battle in addition to the war.”

Michael Shmarak

President/Principal, Sidney Maxwell Public Relations

Your comments on these perspectives are most welcome, but you might like to move over to the actual posts they informed, the first arguing why ex-journalists should not be ‘parachuted’ into the head of the organisational public relations function, whilst the second takes a slightly different view, focusing on why, indeed, ex-journos have the potential to make great PR bosses (soon to be published).

PS. I’d welcome you joining networks with me through my LinkedIn profile. Send me an invite!

Tweet This Post

Ex-journalists are not qualified and do not have the relevant experience to be ‘parachuted’ into the head of the organisational public relations function.  When this occurs, “it is a disaster waiting to happen,” according to one of my peers. And not least because public relations is a two-way process and journalism is a one-way process.

Public relations professionals are trained to create mutually beneficial relationships between an organisation and its stakeholders. This necessitates an understanding of, and capability in, communicating in a meaningful, valuable manner with all relevant parties. Journalists communicate to, not with. Hence, their strategic communication and relationship management experience and capabilities are limited.

Strategic communication is about so much more than opinions or news being broadcast (journalists’ specialty) with little concern for the response they will provoke amongst stakeholders/audiences.

Public relations is not about the ‘control’ of relationships. Rather, it is about facilitating a best-possible outcome between an organisation and its stakeholders. Principles of public relations that need to be considered for this to occur include:

• Dialogue – at the very heart of effective public relations (i.e. not simply ‘broadcast’. Inherent in the notion of dialogue is that an organisation is actually hearing and responding to what its stakeholders are saying and, hence, respecting them)
• Negotiation (i.e. to bring about a win-win scenario)
• Collaboration (working together with stakeholders to generate fresh perspectives, new ideas and resolutions to issues)
• ‘Accommodation’ (i.e. modifying or evolving processes and behaviour).

These principles are not what journalists are trained in. This is not to say that they are not capable of applying such notions, but without requisite training (e.g. university study) and experience they will obviously be way behind the 8-ball compared to those who have done the training and have the experience.

Journalists’ attitudes are too negative to build relationships

“I have never seen a journalist succeed on the corporate side,” said Paul Cargill, Global Communications Team Lead at Cargill. “A PR professional is, at the core, an advocate. They find a way to tell their company or client’s story when there really isn’t one. They always look for ways to promote their client in ways that will be accepted as news.

“A journalist is the opposite, said Paul. “He/she is a trained sceptic. Their skill is to poke holes. When one does that inside a corporation, it is not welcome. Yes, you need to bullet-proof messages or pitches with tough thinking. But if you are not perceived as trying to make the story work instead of pointing out how it won’t, you won’t be around long.”

They are also typically negative, prioritising discussions on bad news. PR pros do flag the negative with our organisations, but our focus is on building mutually positive relationships and that will not occur by being ‘down’ on everything.

Stakeholder advocates

One particular dimension that academic study emphasises that I believe ex-journalists struggle with is the notion that strategic public relations professionals need to act as ‘in-house activists’. At its most elemental, this means the PR pro will often represent the views of external organisational stakeholders and prompt an organisation to evolve based on these views.

This may be in the context of changing the nature of a development of pristine bushland, what constituents are included in a product, how a product is manufactured (e.g. no sweat shops please) or simply the way in which information is communicated to stakeholders or how the organisation-stakeholder dialogue should take place.

Public relations requires leadership

To quote my modest peer of mine again, “PR is a management function; journalists (even senior ones on $$$) are typically ‘worker bees’. It’s quite a head shift to move from one to the other. I know that even at 21, fresh out of uni I saw my job as helping management succeed – whereas journalists moving into PR tend to have quite a different mindset about their function in an organisation.”

Communication strategy

Ex-journalists have no background in the design or analysis of market research, a critically important element of public relations. Market research provides us with the data we need to put together holistic, evidence-based communication strategies and to create benchmarks against which the success of our work can be measured.

Nor is a journalist is not trained in employee communication or community liaison. They have no experience in the sensitivities involved or the most effective means through which to communicate to these stakeholders.

Which leads me to the fact that, OH YES, journalists have no training in putting together these holistic communication strategies, the absolute screaming Jane bedrock of what we do.

As my mysterious peer said to me, “PR is a strategic discipline – journalism is not. (Just eight words, yet so much in that!)”

We don’t shoot from the hip in one-off communication salvos (a la an article in a newspaper or a segment on a white trash current affairs show), we develop strategic themes and drivers to underpin coordinated and multi-faceted activity that uses a range of communication tactics. The communication strategies are often relevant for years. They are not stories that are produced then quickly fade out of focus.

Public relations’ tactical breadth

PR is not a synonym for media relations. Nor is crisis communication the only function a senior PR operative undertakes. And whilst media relations is a major component of crisis communication, it is only one element.

Public relations – as we surely all know!!! – is comprised of a diversity of these tactical communication elements. Journalists are frequently not familiar with the nuances, challenges and opportunities of these elements:

• Publication production (e.g. annual reports, brochures etc)
• Event management
• Social media
• Website/online communication
• Database management
• Round tables and white paper production
• Community consultation
• School and community education
• Sponsorship.

Without having worked in some of these areas in a hands-on capacity, a person’s ability will be limited when:

• considering whether they are an appropriate tactic to include in a communication strategy
• empathising with the person implementing their tactical implementation
• providing counsel, direction and leadership to those implementing the tactic
• knowing what elements of the tactic to prioritise, partly because they will not be aware how long each element takes to complete.

Journalists often take a biff and barge approach to their content. Sometimes it’s hit and miss. Strategic communicators cannot afford to take this approach. It can take years to establish (and win back, where it’s lost) good will and a positive reputation.

One of our roles is to find areas where organisations and their stakeholders can ‘accommodate’ each other, as well as identifying commonalities then building upon them, rather than deepen divisiveness.

Public relations build. Journalists – after you strip away the spin of being society’s conscience – are too focused on destruction. They, unlike public relations professionals, are problem not solution-oriented.

There is a world of difference between the two professions.

In a following post I will posit a range of reasons why ex-journos can be excellent PR practitioners? Would you like to pre-empt my thoughts? Did you agree with those notions I captured here? What do you think, and what is your experience of, journalists who have been parachuted into head of PR functions?

There has been a lot of comment on this through a range of LinkedIn discussion groups already, including Public Relations Professionals, Corporate Communication, PR Professionals and the Public Relations Institute of Australia. A number of these comments on ex-journalists being the boss of PR have been summarised in a post on this blog.

PS. I’d welcome you joining networks with me through my LinkedIn profile. Send me an invite!

Tweet This Post

In the process of putting together a post on why ex-journalists should not be ‘parachuted’ into the head of the organisational public relations function, I started a discussion in a few LinkedIn groups. The responses were mainly defensive in character and most could not tear themselves away from a seeming obsession with media relations.

In the main, the two-way symmetrical, relationship building and accommodation aspect of public relations was ignored. The broader strategic capability and multi-tactical design, management and implementation issues also took a very low profile.

But there were lots of smart, wise and insightful comments left as well, including those that didn’t address the core issue, for whatever reason, and took the discussions in a lateral direction. All good.

The main groups that hosted the discussions were Public Relations Professionals, Corporate Communication, PR Professionals and the Public Relations Institute of Australia. Below I have included a number of the more interesting (and/or humourous)  quotes. I’ll post another collection next week.

Enjoy!

Journalists don’t do dialogic

“While a journalistic background can definitely be advantageous to the PR function (particularly for media relations), it does have it’s limitations.

“PR is a broad field that involves everything from issues management, crisis communication, media relations to community consultation. Each of these areas requires specific skills and knowledge, which ex-journalists may not have or even be aware of.

The other thing is that PR is intended to be a dialogue between an organisation & its publics/audiences. Having a strong news background may cause an ex-journo to focus too much on providing an information stream or selling in stories about an organisation, rather than actually communicating.

“Importantly part of the PR function should be about obtaining feedback from the public/stakeholders and using this information to make positive changes within an organisations – it’s not just about pushing a news agenda.

“This is not to say an ex-journo can’t be a great PR director, however they may have a limited idea about the potential of PR.”

Catherine Guyder

PR Account Manager, Wordstorm

Research, behaviour changing and communication strategy

“Most journalists coming straight from the press are focused on one-way information transmission–that’s what they’ve done all their careers. They are all about the message for the message’s sake.

“Corporate communication requires at least three additional ways of looking at the job:

1. Actively researching and seeking out feedback from your stakeholder groups

2. Focusing on using communication to help facilitate the right behaviors from your stakeholder groups. Sometimes that means communicating less information, but the right information to get the job done.

3. Having a long-term, strategic perspective.”

Angela told an anecdote of an ex-journo who was promoted several times because of his ability to handle crises. “Now that he’s in the top role, he has restructured the communication function and eliminated all planning and research. As he said, ‘I’m good at handling crises. Why would I want to do anything to prevent crises?’ I think that captures it well!”

Angela Sinickas

Owner, Sinickas Communications

Poor journos discriminated against – hold the headline!

“…any type of sweeping statement like this is doomed to failure and is a discrimination our profession can do without.

“Like anybody coming into our world from any profession, there are always going to be weaknesses that need to be addressed. In my view, it comes down to the values people bring to the work that they do. What are the values of people who are attracted to journalism? And how do they compare to the values of an organisation?

“In my experience, many ex-journalists initially have difficulty with concepts of supporting the corporate vision, reputation building and relationship management in a corporate sense. They can be focused on the now, as they were (often forced) as journalists. And many over-estimate the impact of a single media story and the media generally. But some I have worked with have been excellent at these skills.”

Geoff Barbaro

Leadership communications professional

Journalists defend themselves

“Well, I’ve always been amused to hear the pro-journalist argument emanating from…surprise, surprise!…ex-journalists. As someone who has straddled the fence at times (as both a writer and media relations guy), I must say that its a toss-up.

“I’ve seen former reporters and editors who’ve been sharp when it comes to story development but surprisingly lame when it comes to pitching those stories. I’ve also seen non-media folks with well-honed instincts for developing and placing stories but lacking in more general management and communication skills.”

Michael McWilliams

Public interest communicator, advocate, and social entrepreneur

Journalists never succeed

“As a journalist by training and a PR guy by profession, I have never seen a journalist succeed on the corporate side. A PR professional is, at the core, an advocate. They find a way to tell their company or client’s story when there really isn’t one. They always look for ways to promote their client in a ways that will be accepted as news.

“A journalist is the opposite. He/she is a trained sceptic. Their skill is to poke holes. When one does that inside a corporation, it is not welcome. Yes, you need to bullet-proof messages or pitches with tough thinking. But if you are not perceived as trying to make the story work instead of pointing out how it won’t, you won’t be around long.”

Roger Bentley

Global Communication Lead, Cargill

Your comments on these perspectives are most welcome, but you might like to move over to the actual posts they informed (um, and posted…which is not yet), the first arguing why ex-journalists should not be ‘parachuted’ into the head of the organisational public relations function, whilst the second takes a slightly different view, focusing on why, indeed, ex-journos have the potential to make great PR bosses.

PS. I’d welcome you joining networks with me through my LinkedIn profile. Send me an invite!

Tweet This Post

The defining theme that, arguably, characterises the world’s leading authority on public relations, Professor James Grunig, extensive, career-long discussion of public relations is this: organisations that proactively create mutually meaningful and mutually beneficial relationships with their stakeholders, including anticipating issues and actively communicating with them during crises:

“…should be more likely to develop relationships with their publics that make it possible to achieve organisational objectives, develop a positive reputation, and reduce the consequences of poor relationships on the implementation of management decisions.”*

“In some ways,” Grunig says, “Public relations has not been changed by the revolution in digital media.” The illusion of stakeholders being controlled existed before and it still exists now. Stakeholders create their own reality. The only way to impact on this reality is to engage and share information, to evolve based on this sharing and to enhance the meaning that relationships bring.

He made this comment in his recently published article, Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation (Praxis, a digital PR resource centre.) The article had as its central point the potential that social media has to, “truly revolutionalise public relations – but only if a paradigm shift in the thinking of many practitioners and scholars takes place.”

Global public relations in an age of digitalisation: the story so far

This post is the final of a three-part series that discusses certain elements of the article. In the first post (featured on Trevor Young’s PR Warrior blog, as was the second), the following elements were explored:

• how social media has complicated stakeholder targeting and communication
• the notion of ‘giving’ that characterises both public relations and social media
• the lack of control that organisations have over their stakeholders.

In the second post, key elements included:

• the participation required to utilise social media to its full effect
• the dialectic between reputation and engagement for organisational stakeholders
• social media as an issues management activity.

What social media can do for public relations

Social media, Grunig says, has “the potential to make the profession more global, strategic, two-way and interactive, symmetrical or dialogical, and socially responsible.” This will not occur, he warns, if PR pros use it as a means of “dumping messages”, however. Rather, he counsels professionals to interact with stakeholders and bring information, “from the environment into organisational decision-making.”

Social media, if not the ideal way to create this meaning (surely it is direct, interpersonal, face-to-face interaction which still rules here), is clearly becoming more and more influential in this regard.

Human beings are increasingly relying on these forms of communication. For some, social media/digital communication dominates their reality. And, certainly, the information they receive through these mediums, has a considerable degree of credibility. It has been argued that this is due to much of this information coming from individuals, rather than organisations.

Information that enters the social media realm and receives either a deliberate and strategised – or a non-designed organic – impetus from the solar systems of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and their ilk can also have a cumulative, snowball-building ‘word-of-mouth’ effect that the planet has not experienced to this degree before.

Organisations can contribute to this multi-connected and multi-source generated and accelerated dimension. But they sure as hell can’t control it.

Social media is providing public relations with an opportunity to reinforce its importance to business and society. The profession is, in many cases, trying to take advantage of this opportunity. The question is, will it succeed?

The answer, according to Grunig, is only if we institutionalise public relations as a strategic management discipline, one that provides a vitally important element to business strategy and organisational culture.

“I have long provided evidence that public relations has greater value both for organisations and society when it is strategic, managerial, symmetrical, integrated [but not sublimated], diverse, and ethical,” summarised Professor Grunig. “Public relations, when practiced according to this global theory, helps organisations to achieve their goals, cultivate relationships in societies and globally, and reduce conflict.”

In the first post of this three-part series, issues discussed included how social media has complicated stakeholder targeting and communication, the notion of ‘giving’ that characterises both public relations and social media and the lack of control that organisations have over their stakeholders. In the second post, issues discussed included the participation required to utilise social media to its full effect, the dialectic between reputation and engagement for organisational stakeholders and social media as an issues management activity

What are your thoughts on Grunig’s thoughts and on this series of posts? Did you find them of value? Were there any aspects, arguments or thoughts you disagreed with? How can public relations enhance its professional standing and achieve its potential? What role or opportunity does social media have to play in this?

PS. I’d welcome you joining networks with me through my LinkedIn profile. Send me an invite!

*[Note that I am not differentiating, as Grunig does, between ‘stakeholders’ and ‘publics’. I am using the terms as synonyms.]

Tweet This Post

When formulating round tables, public relations professionals need to decide whether to invite media to attend and whether to offer media exclusives. It is generally the major objective of a white paper process to gain positive media coverage for the ‘sponsoring organisation’, though there are a plethora of mechanisms through which the white paper content can be leveraged.

­Round table – media participation or not?

There is value, and there are limitations, in having a media outlet involved in the round table (RT). The approach taken will depend on the importance of the media involved to the ‘sponsoring organisation’s’ positioning and stakeholders.

Important elements to bear in mind when considering this question include:

• Do not involve media as a round table participant if it will stop you from gaining the desired coverage from priority media (or any media you want coverage in, for that matter)
• If involving a media outlet in the round table, however, helps achieve your media placement objectives – then it’s a no-brainer: go for it
• The participating media outlet will want an exclusive on the content – so they get to use it first
• That’s fine, but only if you are happy for it to be the only media outlet that covers the round table/white paper issues; or you can create a media campaign that still allows for other coverage (you may have a one mainstream metro media outlet and multiple B2B outlet media placement approach, for instance, which sounds feasible, strategic and useful to me; or you can crack a deal (unlikely) with the media outlet only using certain aspects of the white paper content and leaving some residual content to place/be discussed elsewhere
• As I have written before, you can create a campaign for metro media that is based on one article or op-ed being placed and then you can leverage radio and/or TV coverage off that single placement
• The other option is getting a media outlet present that is part of a broader network, so the syndication of the story leads to multiple placements, but just within one media ‘house’ (once again, an entirely feasible and potentially valuable approach)
• You will be hard-pressed to contain a media outlet from leaving the content alone until the white paper is prepared and your coordinated roll out of its content is underway – they are insatiable and impatient animals (and live and die for exclusives)!

Public relations’ media coverage: giving an exclusive – yea or nay?

One approach to apply with securing media coverage is arranging an exclusive/placement with one metro publishing house and one exclusive with a vertical B2B publishing house. This may lead to more than one actual placement in both sectors. Additionally, there is generally not a lot of perceived competition between metro media and vertical B2B media:

• One is published virtually instantaneously and one takes longer
• Metro is often for a broader audience and B2B is generally for a more niche audience
• Metro media is often more particular than B2B in publishing content (oh shoot me down B2B media!) so it’s generally much easier to get placement in the latter
• After the content is used in metro media the issues not covered can be value-added to and used as a B2B media relations campaign.

And don’t forget, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush……..make sure you are smart when creating your media placement KPIs. Sure, get it so its business-relevant et al, but you also want to make sure you over-achieve, not, gasp, under-deliver!!

In other words, if getting that single placement is all important on different levels (strategically appropriate to target audiences, makes you look good in front of your organisation etc), then it may well be a prudent methodology to apply. Be smart about this on a variety of levels.

White paper for public relations results

The white paper features information gathered during the round table and provides thought leadership from all participants. Relationship enhancement/marketing activity that can follow with the white paper includes using it:

• as the basis for a media program, either using an issues-based multiple placement or to generate op-eds to place in print media or one-off interviews on radio and/or television. These approaches are not mutually exclusive
• as a direct mail piece to prospects of the sponsoring organisation to help generate new business
• on the sponsoring organisation’s website and/or promoting it – and hence the organisation – through a social media campaign
• as the basis for a speaking program at industry events
• to enhance the positioning of the sponsoring organisation in a specific area (e.g. IT solutions, manufacturing innovation, food packaging). Alternatively, it can also help an organisation break new ground in their positioning, entering a domain they are not generally recognised as being experts in
• as a means by an organisational leader, such as a CEO, stamp his or her authority/expertise on a particular topic. This is a particularly useful approach for a CEO who has recently joined an organisation
• as an employee communication positioning device, which is an extrapolation of the point immediately above.

One final observation: whilst it might be stating the obvious, it does not take a round table to produce a marketing communication white paper. It can be based on a precept which is simply discussed internally by senior, or technically astute, employees. This can then be pushed out via various communication mechanisms as discussed above.

Another methodology is having a precept, then undertaking market research to support, extrapolate or challenge the precept. The research can be complemented by a discussion on a ‘white paper level’. So what you get here is in fact two elements of value to media, especially, but also to other stakeholders:

• Statistics
• Thought leadership.

From a public relations perspective, both have cut-through, both enable a sponsoring organisation’s positioning to be enhanced, so both are winners.

This is the final of a three-part series on round tables and white papers. The first post was an overall strategic discussion of round tables’ and white papers’ value. The second post featured tips on getting participants to attend a round table, facilitating it and taking an alternative approach to round tables.

 What did you think of this discussion? What is your experience in holding round tables and producing white papers? Have you ever invited the media? What were your media placement results?

Tweet This Post

In a previous post the strategic power of round tables and white papers for public relations professionals was discussed. This post extends the topic, focusing on granular elements such as attracting participants to the round table and getting the best out of them. Finally, I take a lateral look at a different way of approaching round tables.

Getting participants to attend a round table

This will be one of your greatest challenges. There is not much point having a round table (RT) if you are going to get second rate participants who cannot generate true thought leadership through their discussions.

Use your contacts to get one or two ‘names’ that you know will agree to participate in the round table to begin with. And when I say ‘your’, I mean your organisation’s, so that might mean mates of the CEO.

That then makes it easier to ‘catch other fish’ to participate in the event because you will flag committed participants in your outreach to potential attendees. Once you have the initial names you can become more ambitious in getting even bigger, or more influential, people to participate.

In the previous post in this series, I was asked why a CEO would want to participate in another organisation’s round table. The motivation for high profile CEOs and their ilk to participate in another organisation’s round table (and hence white paper) is that by associating with others of similar high profile they enhance their own credibility/standing.

To be frank, part of this is an ‘ego thing’ as well.

Also, it allows their profile to be raised (and that of their organisation’s) courtesy of the efforts of another organisation – free publicity, if you like. If the process is being undertaken effectively, that means very targeted communication to very relevant stakeholders.

A final rationale for participating is contained in the biblical maxim…’do unto other as you would have them do unto you.’ Another, more rational, articulation of this notion is the theory of reciprocity. If you want your peers to help you out on occasion, then you’d better give it up for others! Really, if done well, it is a win-win situation for all involved.

Interpersonal approaches to potential attendees from people at the appropriate level (it may even be CEO to CEO), complemented by a formal, well designed hard copy invitation is a prudent approach to take. It is possible that more expanded information on the RT will be requested via email. This should be pre-prepared prior to the invitations being extended.

Facilitating a round table

Engage an expert facilitator. His or her role is to keep the information flowing and useful. They need to prompt, prod, query, clarify and challenge participants to extract ‘good’ information and redirect and stymie where the content is poor.

Whilst respecting participants is important, so is getting ROI on all the time, effort and money that is being put into a round table. The facilitator has a critically important role to play in this and must be well acquainted with each individual’s personality and potential attitude/demeanour and areas of expertise on the issue at hand.

They should not let any one person dominate; moving the focus around is important.

Despite the preparation that can be done on participants and the topic itself, the facilitator must be quick on their feet and have the ability to remain intellectually engaged during the RT process.

An alternative approach to round tables: leadership engagement and positioning

A potential exception to primary methodology I have been espousing in my discussions of RTs and white papers is holding an evening round table over a salubrious dinner. This is real high-end stuff. Only for serious CEOs or CEO-types.

The value of this is that participants won’t be rushing to extricate themselves from the round table as much as they will be during the day. Wining and dining and impressing peers with their intellect can have a certain…attraction (i.e. ego gratification…).

It may well be that the communication outcome from a round table such as this is limited to the relationship enhancement between the sponsoring organisation and the attendees (and their organisations). As such, there will be no white paper or broader communication outreach. (There are some topics or issues on which organisations do not want to see their views promoted.)

Because of the nature of this gathering it is fine to have more than eight to ten participants, perhaps as many as 16. The informal interaction will be as important as the formal discussions to the sponsoring organisation.

But the formal discussions provide a strong basis (or an excuse…) to attract the participants’ attendance. It is very important that the topic is one participants will see value in getting the views of others on, as well those participants having sufficient prestige. CEOs and their ilk want their own prestige enhanced by being in the presence of others of a similar level. Not having participants of this level present may make them feel as if they are being exploited or mocked.

There will be no recording of this RT, but the sponsoring organisation should do a debrief ASAP after it is held to capture the thoughts of those present. This information will be useful as it will serve as the basis for future discussions (or at least enhance them) when the sponsoring organisation is interacting with participants’ organisations in the hope of working with them.

The sponsoring organisation will use the participants as an ice-breaker when calling other people within participants’ organisations, using the participants’ presence, and the now enhanced relationship with the sponsoring organisation, to get a meeting and help pitch business. Even better if the participant reaches out proactively to their colleagues and says: ‘these people are good value: talk to them!’

Essentially, this is solely about enhancing the positioning of the sponsoring organisation in the eyes of participants. As such, this is a very high level, strategic approach.

This is the second of a three-part series on round tables and white papers. The first post was an overall strategic discussion of round tables’ and white papers’ value. The final post in the series focuses on the media relations dimensions of a round table and white paper: should they be invited and getting editorial placement results.

What did you think of this discussion? What is your experience in holding round tables and producing white papers? What were the specific challenges you faced and lessons you learnt? And have you ever held a round table like the senior stakeholder one discussed above, with no ‘tangible’ communication outcome being promoted outside the round table itself? How did it go?

Tweet This Post

Round tables are an excellent methodology to help public relations professionals achieve positive media coverage, enhance relationships with important organisational stakeholders and strengthen organisational positioning. The white paper, produced from a round table, resources issues-driven media campaigns (of which opinion pieces are likely to play a leading role), direct mail and online communication campaigns.

The round table/white paper methodology can also be used in an even more targeted, discreet manner where very confidential, targeted relationship enhancement (i.e. management) will deliver results.

Strategic communication results with target audiences

The white paper is generally a strategic branding, rather than a tactical sales generating, mechanism, though it can be used for the latter. When using the white paper as a direct mail piece, for instance, in many circumstances a follow up phone call will take place to the prospect to use the thought leadership it features as a ‘door opener’ for an appointment.

Another reason why the white paper can assist with positioning, tactical sales or organisation-stakeholder relationships is that the target audience finds its content of value – so recipients appreciate the white paper’s ‘sponsoring organisation’ for producing it.

A final reason for adopting this approach is that it can be part of a program to help rehabilitate an organisation’s reputation after it has undergone a crisis. The thought leadership it shows, its linking/partnership/alliance with other reputable organisations and the manner in which it discusses its insight and activities can all impact positively on knowledge of, and perceptions towards, an organisation

White papers have an excellent track record, if well done, of achieving high level, top tier media coverage. They play an important part in an holistic communication strategy.

A round table (RT) is generally constituted of:

• six to ten participants
• a sponsoring organisation participant and external, non-organisational participants
• participants who are experts, and/or thought leaders, in a particular field
• an agenda for discussion that features a single or a series of closely-related issues that are topical, compelling and of business-relevance to all those participating, as well as the sponsoring organisation’s target audiences.

The ultimate objective of the RT/white paper is to position the organisation (and/or individual, such as a CEO) more favourably with priority stakeholders. From a process perspective, the objective of the RT is to generate ‘content’ that can be leveraged through a white paper, and/or other communication mechanisms, that enhance the positive positioning of the sponsoring organisation.

The credibility factor

There are a number of rationales for having non-organisational employees present at round tables:

• They automatically bring with them 3^rd party credibility when you are using the content generated by the discussions when positioning your organisation and engaging with your stakeholders
• From a positioning perspective, the non-organisational attendees shine a certain light on the sponsoring organisation. If they are well known or experts in a certain field , this spotlight is shared with the sponsoring organisation. This is different to 3^rd party credibility – it is about what the sponsoring organisation does and what it is good at
• Their presence has a snowball effect in filling the seats on your round table. The more credible people/organisations you get to participate, the more attractive the round table becomes to prospective participants
• Similar to forming a strategic alliance, the content from the round table can be leveraged through their organisation’s communication mechanisms (website, newsletters, social media etc). This helps raise the profile and positive positioning of the sponsoring organisation.

Elements of a marketing communication round table

There are no hard and fast rules as to what constitutes an effective round table, but primary elements to consider generally include the following:

• Having only one representative of the sponsoring organisation present, though you could do two at a push
• Those present need to be senior organisational stakeholders. Preferably, organisational leaders. But if not leaders in title, then certainly they should be leaders in thinking, intellect and/or standing
• Eight to ten participants is ideal. Any less and you may not get the discussion, debate and quality content required to give the white paper ‘heft’. Any more and it can become unwieldy, with many participants potentially becoming frustrated at their lack of opportunity to make a meaningful contribution
• Eight to ten participants also allows those present to network effectively and to have side-conversations. This is a key attraction to attracting participants to the RT in the first place
• Limit the discussion to one morning. A whole day is too long and most high-level potential participants will baulk at giving up this much of their time. The brain and the body are likely to be more willing and more engaged at this time of day. Enthusiasm and quality input will be greater
• Follow the round table with a lunch, by all means, but don’t have a meal during the RT process. Make the lunch optional. And don’t make it War and Peace. The mechanisms of serving food will impede and/or upset the thinking and interaction process. These things get in a groove and you don’t want to stymie the flow provided is appropriate, with an 8.45 or 9am sit down and rev up the talk fest time making sense
• Two to three hours should be the limit of time allocated to the round table, with a morning tea break an option to consider, though it is best to keep participants in the room and make it very short
• Make an audio recording of the discussion. Keep it on file as it may be called upon if participants disagree with the way they are quoted
• The white paper produced of the RT discussion will need to be signed off on by all participants.

And remember, as the issue(s) being discussed in the RT should be topical, there is a need to accelerate the white paper generation. Don’t hang around.

Importantly, you want to get that paper and its supporting communication out and in front of stakeholders quickly. You don’t want someone else to beat you to the punch.

 Additionally, a slow white paper production process will mean reduced buy-in and attention to it from participants through the sign off process. And that is nothing short of death to ROI.

This is the first of a three-part series on round tables and white papers. The next post will feature tips on getting participants to attend a round table, facilitating it and taking an alternative approach to round tables. The final post in the series focuses on the media relations dimension of a round table and white paper: should they be invited and getting editorial placement results.

What did you think of this discussion? What is your experience in holding round tables and producing white papers? Did they achieve the intended results? What were the non-media related outcomes, such as stakeholder relationship enhancement?

Tweet This Post

One of the most interesting, thought provoking and humorous Australian public relations blogs is justanotherpr, the product of the wild, fearless and intelligent Karalee Evans. I say one of the best Australian PR blogs, but really it’s one of my fave blogs on a global level.

One of the most notable characteristics of Karalee’s writing is its forthrightness. You won’t die wondering what her opinion is on any of the topics she covers. You get it right between the eyes. Public relations professionals included. Read the serve she gives the profession when she writes that we have a responsibility to be the guardians of authenticity (i.e. truth/reality) rather than arbiters of spin.

Taking responsibility for public relations

You get the idea – loud and clear – that Karalee wants the profession to take responsibility for its own development. This will only occur when it provides counsel in the best interests of an organisation, which means that it needs to take into account the best interests of an organisation’s stakeholders as well. What works for all parties? Without addressing and working with the potentially conflicting needs and wants, the relationship – the relations – will not be meaningful or sustainable.

Marketers, and those who espouse an inaccurate and outmoded perspective of what constitutes PR (you the type, media relations = PR), also get a drilling. As Karalee rightly surmises, what a load of bollocks. But each of her posts exhibits a wry sense of self-deprecation, as well. Karalee and I both fight the good fight on the ‘PR is a strategic business discipline’ front, but we realise it’s a Sisyphean challenge at worst, and a long, slow haul at best.

The forensic detail Karalee attacks some of her topics with is positively, um, media-like. Well, in the days when Rupert etc provided their flacks with resources, anyway. I don’t have the patience myself, but read the way she talks about the evils of public relations astroturfing or her discussion of iSnack public relations ‘disaster’. I ‘apostrophise’ disaster because I am pretty sure Kraft went on to make a motza from the product anyway and at the end of the day why would it care about anything else?

Reputation? Sales? You pick the KPI its executives and shareholders are most concerned with.

Strategic thinking

Inherent within each of Karalee’s posts is a strategic public relations/communication management aesthetic. You can almost hear the gears clanking. Even her superficial-type rants are clearly underpinned by big picture thinking. This is articulated more transparently in posts where she talks about strategy being the most important part of public relations.

She says that, ‘A good strategy seeks to preempt your tactical failures.’ It’s an illustration of that holistic thinking I mentioned. Most strategies are focused on success, but without considering the alternative possibilities occurring as a result of best intentions, has the situation being fully, and ‘strategically’, considered? A further implication of this is the flexibility and fluidity that should be inherent within any strategy.

Research, conceptualise and plan, by all means. Everybody needs to have a direction and responsibilities. But the world is a surprising, delightful and quirky place. Message: get ready to go with (and respond to) the flow!

Karalee is a social media devotee. And no, just because you run a blog it doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about social media-wise. But whilst she recognises and espouses the force of the medium(s), she also writes about it not so much changing what best practice PR is, so much as being an acceleration and almost ideal manifestation of it.

I like the social awareness and corporate social responsibility principles which inform Karalee’s professional stance and writing as well. She is no wowser, but organisations and communication professionals have a responsibility to society as a whole. And as marketers seem to have a HUGE problem with incorporating a social responsibility into the work they do and advice they give, it looks like its left up to the saintly PR folk to deliver!

I was going to tell you something of Karalee’s background, but you can read that for yourself. More important is what she writes about, what she delivers. In summary, these are two things:

• An extremely important contribution to the public relations profession through her tireless, thoughtful examination of issues, trends and case studies. PR folk who don’t read her posts are missing out (on professional development AND fun). She is helping public relations ‘get’ strategic
• An enhancement of Australian culture. She frequently writes on Australian issues and, sometimes, icons. Her work is in Australia. Her humour is Oz-larrikin. Her rapier is pure Antipodean. She does not suffer fools gladly (but she will allow them to buy her a drink).

justanotherpr: spread the word.

Have you read Karalee’s blog? What do you think? Which of her ideas and opinions do you agree or disagree with? What other PR or marketing bloggers do you rate highly?

PS. I’d welcome you joining networks with me through my LinkedIn profile. Send me an invite!

Tweet This Post