One of the study’s key findings, however, was that organisations that produce high risk-involved products might not experience the benefits of strong CSR associations that organisations with low risk-involved products do. For me, that means resources and energy companies, among others, need to question their assumption that CSR is a reputation ‘cure-all’. This isn’t a reason not to operate in a socially responsible manner, of course, but it could certainly influence organisational strategy.

I mention resources and energy specifically because CSR is a main player in these areas, doubtlessly due to their potential contentiousness. The sectors either feel the need to earn ‘brownie points’ with stakeholders, or they genuinely believe their organisational interests are aligned with societal interests. In either case, they lead the way in the application of CSR and are dragging the broader business sector forward.

This is a wonderful thing, as organisations have a huge influence on society and social well-being, far more than governments in my view. They have, therefore, a responsibility to more than just their shareholders.

Public relations as CSR central

CSR will never be effective if it is bolt-on and not built-in, which is possibly why PR has become sidelined in its evolution. CSR is a culture and operational process; it isn’t a ‘program’ or ‘promotion’, no matter how well meaning, that PR and marketing can spin out into a high profile media campaign or an engaging social media drive.

Of course, PR should very much be an organisational culture-centred discipline, counselling an organisation on how to evolve to meet stakeholder needs. But in some ways it is possible the CSR ‘centre’ within an organisation could be usurping PR in this sense. No doubt studies will materialise that examine this issue.

CSR, relationships and sales

The study this post refers to – Transferring Effects of CSR Strategy on Consumer Responses: The Synergistic Model of Corporate Communications Strategy – was written by Sora Kim and published in the Journal of Public Relations Research (2; 2011).

It examines consumer perceptions towards corporations (using Motorola and Kellogg as case studies) and three corporate communication strategies:

• Corporate ability
• CSR
• What Kim calls a ‘hybrid’ strategy’.

The corporate ability strategy focuses on building awareness of an organisation’s expertise in terms of their products and services. A CSR strategy is, I hope, self-evident (but just in case, it emphasises an organisation’s socially responsible credentials). Kim’s hybrid strategy means both strategies exist and are applied by an organisation in a conscious, intended manner.

Interestingly, but perhaps predictably, Kim notes that despite extensive research on the topic, “research has not reached consensus regarding the consequences of CSR”.

CSR and communication: reputation impact

Some of the study’s key findings include:

• When companies are well known amongst consumers, “a CSR strategy may be more effective in influencing” consumers, positively impacting on perceptions of CSR and corporate ability
• Employing a hybrid strategy is a “safe”, feasible and effective means of undertaking corporate communication
• The above finding should be understood in the context, however, that “a CSR strategy seems to be much more effective” in creating positive consumer sentiment towards an organisation
• Just because an organisation is perceived to have a strong corporate ability (i.e. achieve positive commercial/business outcomes) doesn’t mean stakeholders associate it with a CSR positioning
• When an organisation goes beyond a consumer’s commercial expectations in undertaking CSR activities, consumers are more likely to be satisfied with the organisations, “resulting in positive evaluation” of the organisations.

Kim makes the assertion that, “consumers may feel that a company that is socially responsible and helps society using its own profit would also have a strong ability to make good products…this suggests that there are transferring effects” of perceptions of CSR associations onto the ability to make corporate ability associations – the caveat to this being that both the companies in the study being well known and this could impact on the findings.

Reputation more important than relationships in PR?

In closing a discussion, Kim refers to the interesting notion that PR practitioners may be abandoning what was once the more prevalent commitment to relationship management, practicing instead reputation management. This is an interesting and not so subtle differentiation that is worth exploring. If, indeed, this is the case, then our profession needs to do a serious stocktake of the direction in which we are heading.

Reputation is about, essentially, the surface of an organisation. Relationship goes directly to how organisations and stakeholders interact, how they work with each other. It is very much a behavioural dimension, whereas reputation is more closely aligned with perceptions.

Perceptions don’t buy products. They don’t advocate organisations. They don’t make a difference. Behaviour, on the other hand, can achieve all three of these outcomes.

Which leads to a concluding question. Kim’s study is all about perceptions. Does a stronger perceived CSR capability, I wonder, encourage consumers to buy more of an organisation’s products?

What is your experience, possibly through research your organisation has undertaken or that you are aware of, in CSR influencing reputation, stakeholder relationships and sales? Does your organisation undertake research to help shape its CSR strategy? How much of a role does PR have in CSR in your organisation? Do you think CSR was a PR fad that has now, gulp, had its place taken by social media?

However, what’s unfortunately more often the case is marketing being rather clueless about what the business or brand story (competitive differentiation) should be. Then it becomes a case of the tail wagging the dog, where PR needs to lead marketing to effective strategies for being heard in the market place and help drive brand awareness and credibility.

[This is a guest post by Ford Kanzler.*]

If marketing is only focused on “turning a buck”, it’s not being undertaken by very good marketers. They probably ought to move over to working in finance. Those are the ones who just look at numbers and typically have no sense of connecting with customers or any other constituencies, except perhaps for stockholders, who are also quite often just trying to turn a buck as well.

Marketing leads

If an organization is set up to deliver goods and services, then frankly marketing ought to be at the helm. Consider what PR would be doing if there were no Marketing…finding and delivering something for an interested group.

What organizations exist without an aspect of Marketing? What organizations exist that exist solely for the purpose of public relations?

• PR is a service to the organization: it’s the “voice of business”
• An election campaign is marketing a candidate
• A benevolent cause is marketing to potential donors
• Manufacturers are marketing a product.

Consider that reputation, community relations, issues management, internal communication, investor relations and much more are all supporting and sustaining the organization’s or business’ purpose of delivering a goods and services to “customers” or whatever you want to call the recipients.

Cooperation is key

Certainly, I agree that marketing and public relations must work together effectively. PR doesn’t exist in isolation.

However, PR serves the purposes of the organization whose essential reason for being is marketing. I suggest getting upset about who’s directing the show is quite pointless. What’s true is that PR quite often needs to provide communications direction when marketing fails in that area.

Skilled marketers know what needs to be transmitted to their market. Lack of marketing direction doesn’t automatically make PR necessarily ‘in charge’. We’re merely filling an often occurring leadership vacuum.

PR pros shouldn’t get too full of themselves about doing that, even if it’s often a very necessary and valuable role. After all, what are you promoting or communicating about if there’s not a marketing objective?

Effective marketers, now and historically, have a clear vision of what customers want and why and provide PR (and/or marcomms) with the insight and direction needed for communicating well about the organization, products and services.

If PR is also “dedicated to the holistic organization-stakeholder set of relationships, including marketing imperatives,” so much the better. Then both functions are on the same page and things will likely work out a lot better.

Bringing a focus

I prove my value to clients by helping them understand what, how and when they should be communicating about their business. Then I help execute appropriate campaign tactics that carry their story to receptive prospects.

Am I doing PR when I move back up the chain of events to create communications strategy? I don’t think so. I’m doing the work of the marketer who should have figured out how to tell their story before I showed up. Thankfully, lots of businesses haven’t figured that out, so I and other PR pros can help marketers that way. We’re doing marketing so we can do effective PR.

The mind directing the voice

If public relations isn’t a service to marketing, then apparently most companies have it all wrong.

Everywhere I’ve been PR reports to the Marketing VP or Director. If it reports to someone lower on the totem pole than that, it sure isn’t going to be very strategic to the company’s business.

What also enters into today’s PR practice has been labeled corporate social responsibility (CSR).

I suggest strategic-thinking PR pros have long focused on their organizations’ or clients’ social or public responsibilities as critical to protecting the brand’s overall, long-term perceived value.

Were they always listened to? Certainly not and often to the detriment of the business they were counseling. Now we have a name for this traditional aspect of PR, specialists practicing it and books written on it.

However, CSR also must connect with the business objectives and either temper or enhance what the business is planning, doing or not doing. It’s here where there certainly may be potential conflicts between marketing, other groups and PR.

CSR, or PR pros working in that vein, have the opportunity to act as a corporate conscience. When PR pros want to separate their work from marketing and seem to consider PR a higher or loftier calling there’s going to be trouble. Corporate and marketing management will be quickly turned off by PR pros who are not well connected with Marketing’s objectives and strategies.

To Craig’s point that, “organisations are driven by their vision, values and business objectives,” I agree. The last time I checked “business objectives” are definitely about communicating and selling goods, services or an idea, typically to earn revenue. Creating awareness, credibility, preference, willingness to engage and purchase or adopt something from the organization sponsoring the communicating drives revenue.

This is at the heart of PR’s support of the organization’s marketing and sales effort. Creating good will or positive regard or reputation are all intimately connected to business growth or maintenance.

Even organized religions are marketing and publicizing in a range of ways to raise funds or gather members.

I’ve done PR for the Boy Scouts to help grow membership, community support and involvement. It’s all the same game. Yes, the scouts are driven by their ‘vision and values’. However, bringing new scouts and their parents into the fold to grow and maintain the organization is what the organization’s survival is all about.

Not tying PR efforts (objectives, strategies and tactics) to business objectives is, frankly, a sure way of losing your job or your client. Do marketing and public relations need to play well together for best effect? Certainly! Their working hand-in-hand is key.

What did you think of Ford’s assertions? Should public relations always be a service to marketing? Are those PR pros working in a CSR vein taking the opportunity to act as an organisation’s conscience? Even if PR is not working in a CSR-specific (or branded) area, should it still be acting to some degree as an organisation’s conscience?

*Ford Kanzler is a Managing Partner at Marketing/PR Savvy and has extensive experience in both marketing and public relations. His just-published book, Connecting the Mind and Voice of Business, illuminates the ups and downs, and pros and cons, in each discipline cooperating and understanding each area.

But is there really a crisis of trust? Or are we in danger of making the wrong diagnosis and recommending the wrong remedies?

[This is a guest post by Paul Seaman, who runs his own international PR consultancy, West PR.]

We are being asked to believe that Western firms, governments and other institutions have lost the trust of the people. We are told, as a consequence, they risk losing their licence to operate.

But the Edelman Trust Barometer reported last year that Russian business is more trusted than Germany’s and France’s. It asked us to believe that business in Brazil, China and India (trust levels 60-70%) were way above those in Canada, Japan and the US (50-59%).

Surely, such findings should sound warning signals and inspire us to question the premises of this debate about trust?

If you are not convinced, then just consider so-called political trust. China’s government, according to Edelman, is the most trusted on earth at 74%, compared to the US’s measly 46% (in the Obama era) and the UK’s 38% (pre-David Cameron) which, we are asked to believe, is on a par with Russia.

If these are the answers, someone’s been asking the wrong question. Or there are lots of people in the world who are – as we old Marxists used to say – not being objective.

Or they’re in denial.

Or they’ve got cognitive dissonance.

Transparency: a fault line for PR pros

Commonsense should warn us that placing transparency at the heart of political and business life effectively means promoting the notion that institutions cannot be trusted. How we can ever make a virtue of trust by institutionalising distrust is a question too few PRs ever ask.

Surely, trust means that we allow people and institutions their privacy? In his useful book, ‘Trust’, Anthony Seldon quotes the US statesman Henry Timson saying: “The only way to make a man trustworthy is to trust him”. (Seldon also argues for lots of transparency, so he’s not the most logical guide either, but the quote is spot on.)

Surely, if every statement and action of a politician and diplomat – as WikiLeaks would like – was made transparent, politicians would avoid ever revealing the truth, or what they think, even in private among themselves in anything like formal settings. That would make them untrustworthy at virtually every level. It would drive democratic (read also corporate) accountability underground, or perhaps onto unaccountable sofa governments (kitchen Boards), in the style of Tony Blair.

The problem with the trust discussion is, I maintain, that we have confused healthy scepticism with lack of trust. The former is healthy. It forms part of our democratic heritage. But throwing away trust in the name of transparency is retrograde and corrosive. That’s why I say today’s misplaced hype about trust risks turning scepticism into soul-destroying cynicism.

Delivering on corporate social responsibility

So how does all this relate to corporate social responsibility and issues such as sustainability? Well, closely, particularly at the level of motivation. Here’s how Sandra MacLeod, CEO of Echo Research, explains what’s driving the rush to proclaim corporate responsibility practices:

“Corporate leaders are now being challenged to step up to greater commitments on sustainability, and ensure they have performance measures for behaviour directly linked to responsibility and trust if they are to succeed.” (‘A World in Trust)

The PR agency Edelman claims, according to 52% of business leaders, that the path to trust lies in treating all stakeholders as equals.

These seem obvious. But they are flawed. There’s something very much like ‘greenwash’ at the heart of it all.

Fact is, for a firm to be trusted in the long term it needs to have publicly committed itself to the maintenance of some wriggle room. Over-commit to motherhood and apple pie and you’re stuck being called out as a two-faced turncoat when the going gets rough. The minute profits drop every employee knows that a firm has to look to its economic sustainability.

The public relations of telling the truth

So what do I advocate?

Well, the first thing is that we should start speaking straight. That might mean telling some harsh truths. It certainly means avoiding making misleading statements, such as, “all stakeholders are equals”. It means we should stop pretending that ‘sustainability and innovation’ are compatible bedfellows: Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction clearly suggests otherwise. The truth is that innovation, like progress, is ceaseless.

Perhaps, also, PRs should recommend that firms stop pretending – Beyond Petroleum fashion – that their social purpose is something different from what they exist to do.

Perhaps we should restate that firms are financed and owned by shareholders and that governance is about defending their interests first and foremost.

And perhaps, most of all, we should stop pretending that our western societies are sick, dishonest and corrupt.

None of what I’ve just said, however, should be taken as dismissal of CSR. I’m one of its strongest advocates.

When practiced properly it is vital and healthy. No company should be allowed or want to do massive harm to the environment or to trample on people’s rights. Respect and care is part of earning the right to remain trusted.

My point is that right now the debate about sustainability and CSR is headed in the wrong direction and is premised on notions that cannot themselves be trusted.

So is the debate about sustainability and CSR headed in the wrong direction? What about PR’s role in this dialectic? What can PR pros do about CSR – both in the organisations they work with and in society in general? Where do the responsibilities of PR professionals really lie – morally as well as professionally? How much are we meant to try and solve or, at least, address and get a dialogue going on, both internally and between our organisations and their stakeholders?

In countries as diverse as Switzerland and Nigeria, Paul Seaman has worked in environments ranging from multinational boardrooms to environmental disaster zones. He’s managed corporate, crisis and product PR and dealt with every kind of media. Today he runs his own international PR consultancy, West PR – Seaman, based in Zurich, Switzerland. He can be networked with on his blog 21^st century PR issues, his LinkedIn profile and on Twitter @paulseaman .

[This post is included, with many other posts, in a free strategic PR report that can be downloaded free from this blog by email subscribing to it. The report - Public relations 2011: insights ideas issues - features professional practice-adding value from 10 global PR leaders (and me).]

Is there a line that PR should not cross…tobacco, gambling, petrol…name your ‘poison’?

Angst-ridden PR guy...agonising

This thought was prompted by the recent discovery that a reputable organisation with a business model based on doing good environmental deeds accepted corporate sponsorship from a tobacco company. It didn’t seem like an appropriate alignment of values to me, but I sought the opinion of fellow professionals on the issue.

Also, I wonder are there any areas where PR should not tread, or it should tell its organisation not to tread? We can all get on a high moral horse at times, but when it comes to many high-carbon producing industries, for instance, most of us are part of the problem, not the solution.

This manifests itself in our lifestyles (e.g. using petrol-consuming cars) and our investments (e.g. much of our superannuation will be partly invested in ‘evil banks’, petrol producers and mining companies that often put profit above the environment or the concerns of indigenous people). So there are very few cleanskins in western society, but where do you draw the line?

The ethical decisions that all of us – not just PR pros – face in life are extremely difficult, but generally made easier by the blithe sense of self-preoccupation that characterises our human condition.

But in PR we are not just paying for a product or service, we are actively involved in promoting products and services (as well as organisations) so, I suggest, there is an even heavier moral responsibility on us (and marketers in general) than any ‘normal’ community member.

And I would suggest that because of that promotional/selling dimension of our roles, there is a higher moral burden on us than other employees of organisations who, merely by working for them, are inherently supporting the production of products and services. If you don’t support the selling of tobacco, for instance, then how can you work for a cigarette company?

If its legal, then it’s okay for PR

There is an argument that says people have freedom of choice, so we don’t need to bear responsibility for the products and services, or the organisations, we promote and/or work for: ‘it is up to individuals whether they choose to buy the product or service’, encapsulates this line of thinking. If it’s legal, then it’s fair game…

Bill Gay, in a Public Relations Professionals discussion on LinkedIn, said on this topic, “I feel that legal endeavors deserve their day in the court of public opinion. As professional communicators, we can assist them and can contribute to society in that regard. But that is where our code of ethics comes in.

“As a profession, we must embrace all of it. Our first obligation is to the broader society and to truth. Ethical public relations can further public discussion and assist the public in making proper decisions. Leave the ethical practices out and we are just hacks.

“All professional practitioners of Public Relations need to search their own conscience regarding who they can ethically represent,” Bill continued. “We should not lie for anyone.”

Bill also asked, “Who determines what is ‘inherently immoral or unethical’? Oil [producers], car manufacturers, weapons producers, environmental groups, health insurance companies, even the military could be construed by some as being bad for society. That is where personal choice as well as professional ethics becomes crucial.

PR: do we help, do we avoid, do we seek change?

Taking money from the ‘evil axis’

Going back to my original scenario, in an IABC LinkedIn discussion on this topic, Raed Gergers implied he would accept money from banks, mining companies, petrol producers (and even tobacco companies?), provided certain conditions were met:

• “No PR activities whatsoever to be done around the donation (they should not benefit positively from such donations)
• “No branding, marketing or corporate announcements…

“In brief, the transaction should be under the law, mentioned in the books only but not exploited in any way.”

If you are taking money from an organisation you consider immoral, however, I am not sure that you can be half-pregnant, so to speak. Making subtle distinctions about how the money is used, once accepted, seems hypocritical and impotent to me.

Whether used in one program and not in others, the organisation accepting the money is tacitly approving of what the sponsoring organisation does/sell etc as well as benefiting financially in a holistic sense.

Accepting money from legal organisations just because they are legal would seem to me to be, potentially, a denial of an individual’s moral or ethical beliefs (and maybe even responsibilities) as well as, potentially, contradictory to the sponsored organisation’s values. Clearly, this has profound implications for an organisation’s brand in its most holistic sense.

As Kylie Taylor said in another (PRIA) LinkedIn discussion, however, “Where do you draw the line?”

There were many more additional points of great acuity and value made in the LinkedIn discussions flagged above. I intend to return to these in a future post.

I’d welcome further perspectives on this discussion, as it is important for me (and others I suspect) both as a PR professional and as a member of society. What are your thoughts and own personal experiences? Where have you had problems with ‘where to draw the line’?
 

PS: I’d welcome you joining my 1,200-strong LinkedIn network (send me an invite!) or interact with me through Twitter.

PPS. And don’t forget you can subscribe to this blog via email or RSS at the top of the blog’s page, or Tweet about this post using the handy RT button, adding your own editorial two cents worth!

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!

This post explores these dimensions with the input and assistance of two of the globe’s most astute public relations minds, Craig Badings and Sean Williams, both of whom provide plenty of insights on their own estimable blogs.

The ugly communication canards

Starting with the eye rolling, it never ceases to amaze me what some wankers in the advertising/marketing world come up with and their justifications for it. Australian readers will be familiar with the Toyota debacle, where a sexist, incest-implying entry into an advertisement competition was repeatedly justified by marketers, then needed to be pulled out of the fire by public relations experts.

Arguably even more devastating due to the impact it is literally having on people’s lives, is how one of Australia’s largest banks, Westpac, raised home loan interest rates way in excess of our Reserve Bank’s guidelines (unlike some of their competitors). This was bad enough (avarice, completely contradictory to the Westpac’s supposed – and now obviously shot to pieces – CSR positioning) but it was made worse by an ill-judged video using banana smoothies as an analogy for the excessive interest rate hike…unbelievable.

Craig Badings found the GFC tiresome (hey, and who can blame him! It got me retrenched, so I know what he means). “The impact of the GFC on communication service companies has had a profound impact in many respects,” he says.

“I am nervous that some of these will become de rigueur moving forward. For example, some companies have become extremely process driven in their approach to comms. This is all well and good when used to measure outputs and impact on ROI but when it comes as the expense of innovation and creativity I start fearing for the relationship. These approaches, if taken too far, inevitably kill the passion.”

Sean Williams, on the other hand, took the other major elephant in the room over the past year to task. “Crap social media claptrap. There is a ruling class in social media consulting who regurgitates the same old, tired canard of gobbeldy-gook that makes social media out to be the reinvention of the structure of society itself, declaring the End of News Media and accusing anyone who disagrees of being stupid, corrupt or worse.”

Examples of best practice public relations

On a more positive note, Craig looked back with satisfaction on a campaign he had worked on with law firm Henry Davis York. This…“resulted in the government of New South Wales settling with a family whose home was situated on an old radioactive waste site.”

Sean pointed out an excellent campaign by The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, called ‘Drawing Board’. “They are my client for measurement, so I can’t take credit for the single best and simplest explanation of financial regulation I’ve ever seen [unintentional banking and video connection noted...!]. They’ve also done a follow up video on the consumer price index…”

Getting better (at communicating) all the time

There is nothing that we all can’t get better at, but Sean and I would love to win more new business for our consultancies and I am sure Craig empathises with this as well. I question whether really profound, organisation-changing work can be done from the consultancy position, as opposed to working in-house in a PR capacity, but there are certainly plenty of exceptions to this position.

Sean, like most of us, had a big social media learning and ‘doing’ time in 2009. “Twitter and blogging make up a huge part of my day/week,” he says. “And the amount of information (some good, some not) I’ve gleaned from reading others in our field has been great.”

Plenty of us would have the tools to get better at our jobs by reading Craig’s book, Brand Stand; seven steps to thought leadership, which was published this year, whilst professional communication blogs by the likes of Karalee Evans and Trevor Young make an ongoing contribution to professional PR learning.

Incorporating the perspectives of others into my work and approach is always one of the more interesting and enriching dimensions of a professional life. Of course, embracing the views of others is analogous to public relations so it’s hypocritical not to bring such a mindset to our work.

And for 2010?

“I think more and more executives and communication professionals are beginning to understand the true power of good thought leadership and, if done properly, it’s ability to impact sales,” postulates Craig. “The biggest battle, however, is getting some people to understand that the focus of thought leadership doesn’t have to be on the product or service and that it is perfectly OK to ‘give away’ or share information and insights.”

The ‘giving away’ of information is similar to social media best practice. But social media still remains a war zone, according to Craig. “Many of the large corporates are still battling with the concept of engaging online. Speak to Dell, Walmart, Kryptonite locks, Pizza Hut and a host of others to find out just how important it is, if only as an early warning device for issues and a way to help manage crises.”

Sean says, “2010 could well be the Year of Measurement – that means doing long-delayed internal comms research, reducing dependence on ‘more more more’ in media relations in favour of better targeting and generally looking critically at how communication affects the business.”

It was reinforced for me during 2009, and I’ll be applying this in 2010 and beyond, how important flexibility and believing in yourself is. I was retrenched during 2009, I started my blog, I was forced to start my own business and now juggle a permanent role, my own business and this demanding blog baby.

An upside out of this was meeting, networking and collaborating with a wide range of public relations professionals, many of whom provided me with a great deal of support, inspiration and professional education. It reinforced to me what a rewarding, worthwhile profession I work in.

 So tell me, what were the highs, lows and ‘learnings’ of 2009 for you – and what do you think the professional business communication world will bring in 2010?

The goals for this blog that I started mid-2009 have stayed pretty much the same: to expand knowledge on professional communication, especially public relations, and stimulate vigorous debate. Hopefully, an outcome of this is enhancing the conceptual and practical awareness and skills of communication professionals so they become better at their jobs.

A major motivating factor behind the blog’s inception was (and is) to raise awareness of the strategic importance of public relations to business and how its best practice application leads to a more equitable society.

At the core of the blog’s aesthetic is honesty and integrity; expressing opinions in a frank, sometimes provocative manner, that truly encapsulates the perspective of those, including myself, who use the blog as a platform and an opportunity for dialogue.

I view taking a sometimes ‘edgy’ approach, rather than a softly-softly mind-your-manners one, as being more likely to engage with professional communicators and involve them in the blog’s discussions.

Another factor was to help raise the profile of my ‘personal brand’ as part of a marketing strategy to get work after being a ‘GFC (woe is/was me…) retrenchment’ in April. This seems to have worked, as it definitely helped me gain a permanent role, as well as clients for my own business.

Since starting the blog in June, the blog has:

• featured the perspectives of numerous industry leaders
• had customised versions of its posts syndicated in Mumbrella, Frocomm’s PR Report and the Public Relations Institute of Australia’s e-newsletter and website
• provided a free, extensively resourced PDF report on crisis communication and social media, featuring the views of numerous PR thought leaders
• enhanced the vigour with which professional communication has been discussed in this country, adding to media and influential blogger commentary
• been ranked number one when undertaking a Google search for ‘public relations bloggers’ on 20 November (okay already, I admit Google must have been having a freak day).

The diversity of perspectives and voices the blog represents is analogous of social media and public relations, a key tenet of the latter being to represent the plurality of perspectives relevant to organisations. This is manifested not just in readers’ comments, but in posts that specifically discuss the views of others, either in the manner of ‘reviews’, interviews or guest posts. Topics covered include:

• market research
• crisis communication
• social media
• corporate social responsibility
• positioning.

There are a number of posts which encapsulate the blog’s aesthetic. They include

• the primacy of the two-way symmetrical communication model of public relations to the discipline’s best practice implementation
• how public relations is a critically important business discipline that is helping the world become a better place
• public relations’ responsibility to transform organisations so that they are more aligned with their stakeholders’ needs and wants
• the gratifying and inspirational aesthetic that underpins the culture of public relations.

It’s been a fun ride and has certainly enhanced my enjoyment of public relations.

Working in a consultancy environment, all too often you find yourself ensconced in the tactical rather than the strategic end of PR, way too frequently do you end up focusing on media relations alone and, finally, new business isn’t what I would call the sexiest characteristic of PR agency life (it’s not what I did a Goddamn Masters for, put it like that!)

So it’s fulfilling, at least, to discuss best practice and interesting dimensions of public relations whilst you are working to get that that killer client walk in the door…

This perspective is a manifestation of the guiding principle of strategic public relations, two-way symmetrical communication, where organisational perspectives, processes and, yes, values, do not come about in isolation to stakeholders, but through an organic, mutually respectful process.

The responsibility of business
Craig Badings, of Cannings (right-below), took the same approach in his presentation at the summit. Craig wielded the hatchet to Milton Friedman’s dictum of “The business of business is business…” Craig said, “This no longer cuts it. Companies know this, the public knows it and so do NGOs, regulators and government.

“This is the era of the ethical consumer,” Craig continued. There is nowhere for organisations to hide. This reinforces the responsibility that public relations practitioners have to influence organisational behaviour. This will help organisations develop more mutually beneficial relationships with their stakeholders, at the same time impacting positively on society.

Craig posed the question, can CSR or thought leadership lessen the impact of a crisis or lead to a faster recovery? He asserted that these days companies are not only, “expected to come up with products that are good for the bottom line, they also need to be good for society.”

CSR, of course, is fundamentally about aligning an organisation with society and stakeholder expectations. Operating at its optimum level, it is not ‘bolt-on’, it is fully integrated and part of the organisational culture, as SR|7’s James Griffin implied at the summit. Being socially responsible, then, is just about the best form of reputation enhancement and crisis preparedness that an organisation can undertake.

“CSR in the truest sense is about conducting a thorough risk analysis and aligning programs with your company values that best mitigate those risks in a collaborative a manner as possible,” said Craig. Integrating CSR within the values of the business, as Rupert also implied was necessary, enhances the integrity of the organisation and its approach to business.

Reputation matters – financially
Craig discussed the findings of the Reputation Index, which corroborates that, “a well-regarded company is more likely to be trusted, liked, admired and esteemed than others – all strong mitigating factors when a crisis hits and all likely to afford you, for a while at least, the benefit of the doubt.”

Importantly, Craig provided data that strongly suggests organisations with an enhanced reputation withstand crises markedly better than those that do not have a good reputation. There are also plenty of academic studies supporting this assertion.

The drivers behind CSR adoption
The dialectic that determines why organisations adopt CSR is an interesting one. As Craig pointed out, it is not unusual for the ‘adoption’ to be driven by a desire to placate stakeholders, rather than be truly aligned with the way a business operates or its values. Philanthropy does not = social responsibility or true two-way symmetrical communication. It is a superficial gesture, no matter how big the handout. Giving money to a worthy cause hardly mitigates the fact that you might be slashing rainforests and paying workers a pittance so that you make enough money for the hand out.

Similarly, producing a flashy CSR report (printed on recycled paper…) does not constitute social responsibility.

However, if the reporting and the philanthropy help peel the scales from the organisation’s eyes as to the benefit and payoff in CSR, then who cares? It has a purpose. Sometimes, the cart does come before the horse.

A further extension of this is an organisation’s use of social media. Utilising social media implies an organisation is applying a CSR/two-way symmetrical communication approach because social media means it is…

• listening, talking to and trying to understand its stakeholders (or is it?)
• open to altering its processes, products, services, behaviours and approaches to stakeholder engagement, so it is more in line with stakeholder needs and wants (or does it?).

The answer to both questions is no. But if the use of social media means some of those stakeholder messages are filtering their way up to the boardroom…then maybe, just maybe, that social responsibility will come.

CSR and public relations
CSR, then, is really public relations operating at its most strategic level, applying the methodology of two-way symmetrical communication. This is clearly an excellent way of minimising the likelihood of a reputational crisis impacting on an organisation as well as minimising the impact of a crisis when it does occur.

How do you feel about the parallels that are drawn in this post between public relations and CSR? What is the public relations professional’s role in encouraging an organisation to be socially responsible? Do you have examples of CSR in business ‘doing good’? And this could mean financially (for the organisation), socially or in another dimension.

This post is part of an extended series covering the summit. All the coverage is also available in a free PDF report that you are welcome to share with your colleagues and peers. As a return favour for providing this resource, and only – of course – if you think the content is worthwhile, perhaps you could tweet about it or flag it on one of your social media networking sites, such as LinkedIn.