Yet, according to Australia’s outgoing commissioner responsible for age discrimination, from the age of 45 employment options start to shrink for people. “From that point on, one of the greatest barriers to employment is age,” said Elizabeth Broderick, who worked in her role for three years.

Gender discrimination is not tolerated, as Ms Broderick said, so why should age discrimination be any more acceptable?

I was nearly fooled into discrimination by age

A few years ago I was recruiting for a role that reported to me. There were a number of younger, as well as an older, candidates. Compared to the others, much, much older in fact. And considerably older than most of the team I had working with me.

Yet, according to the job specs this was clearly the most qualified and suitable person for the job. But I wavered.

What if this person wouldn’t fit into the fast-moving, fluid culture of the team I already had? Would the candidate be able to offer the insights into new technology that were emerging for web and digital communication? (Somewhat ironically, this role was all to do with managing a website, supposedly young turk turf…)

But I hired the old guy (oh yes, he knows who it is!), and you know what, here’s what happened:

• He educated all of the team, but me especially, on a range of digital communication capabilities
• He was way ahead of most other IT/web-related professionals I’d interacted with
• He recognised age as a perception-barrier from other people so worked extremely hard to deliver not just what was required by the role, but to provide value-add on top of that
• His energy levels and devotion to the job meant you had to prise him out of the office and even then, as we soon learnt, he’d continue working on delivering beyond best practice outcomes at home
• His experience enabled him to navigate turbulent political waters and interact with those unhappy with change (because this guy led a huge seachange in website communication at the organisation) successfully
• He provided sage advice to me many a time, sometimes specifically relevant to his own role and sometimes in relation to leadership, management and business communication in a broader sense.

And you know what, he also became a good friend. Not just of myself, but of all those younger folk in the team as well. Multiple wins all round.

Suffice to say, lesson well learnt.

Why age rules in public relations

Hopefully (!), the more you do something the better at it you get. The flipside of this is that you can also get jaded by it, losing enthusiasm and hence an edge or creativity or freshness that is required. Like most things, it comes down to the individual and their attitude.

Certainly, as writing is PR’s number one skill, we can do with all the expertise we can get. I’ve found younger people in PR to often possess very poor writing skills. Age can be a real winner in this regard.

The more you write, the more feedback you get, the more lessons you learn – the better you get. Either that, or you get unemployed.

Dealing effectively with people – whether they be journalists, senior management, colleagues and others – is probably PR’s number two skill. And as you age you naturally encounter a range of different people and are put in a range of situations, many of them confronting. These experiences impact not just on knowledge, but in the array of responses we develop to resolve and leverage them for the best possible outcome.

This is nothing against youth (which has plenty going for it too!) it is just a simple result of aging. Age definitely wins in these regards!

Within PR, age seems to me like it should be perceived as having excellent POD. This is an industry dominated by youth. Perhaps this is partly because it is a female-centric industry and women tend to leave the workforce (due to family commitments?) as they age. I don’t know, I’m just speculating, because having a lot of women in PR is one of the best things about the industry.

The dwindling of PR professionals as we age underlines that in PR we should be trying to hang onto older workers for as long as possible. The knowledge they possess is equally important, and in many situations vastly more so, than whatever we learn from doing a Masters degree or deep-diving into social media 24/7/12/52.

Funnily enough, in my experience older people in the workforce tend to behave in a young way. That’s if you characterise the young as having:

• Energy
• Creativity
• A willingness to try something new.

We could all do with a bit more age in our workforce.

What examples do you have of either age discrimination in the workplace or where older employees have delivered excellent value? What do you think it is about older workers that adds value to the workforce? Or do you disagree; do you only want to work with young people in the PR industry?

Two of the three characteristics of power I just named fall squarely within the remit of public relations: information and influence. These are our currency. We use them on a daily basis. But how do we use them, what are the sorts of decisions we make and why do we make them?

My thinking on this topic was prompted by a conversation with UK PR practitioner and teacher Catherine Sweet, who said…” I have a sneaking suspicion that ALL communication is asymmetric because the distribution of information pertinent to the conversation is inherently unequal.”

How power is used in PR information dissemination

Organisations are generally the ones that want to start communication (maybe even conversation) on a particular topic as they want change to occur in some way. It may be a knowledge, perception or behavioural change, but it’s still change.

Communication can also be prompted by an organisation wanting to maintain its positive reputation and/or its market share. In this case, change is not actually sought, just reinforcement of the status quo. A further dimension of this is reinforcing reputation to protect an organisation in a time of crisis.

At the core of this is that organisations have the resources to undertake the communication. People – like us – are employed specifically for this job. An organisation’s stakeholders are, mostly, not employed to communicate with an organisation. So we immediately have a power imbalance in the time and resources (and interest?) that all relevant parties devote to communication.

One challenge for PR practitioners is not fatiguing those we are communicating with. After all, stakeholders are not spending most of their time, as we are, in a communication-dedicated mode. Timing, frequency, medium and content are all critical questions to answer in this regard.

Did I just say timing, frequency, medium and content?

Well, there you go, four more examples of how organisations wield considerable power when it comes to communication. Of course, the smarter organisations will pay heed to their stakeholders’ timing, frequency, medium and content needs and wants. But it’s still the organisation that makes the ultimate call on this.

Power decisions in PR (i.e. what are the sorts of decisions we make?)

Perhaps the single most important power-related decision we make in business communication is what are we actually communicating; what is the content of that communication? Inherent in this is the notion of disclosure.

It’s all very well to promote the positive aspects of an organisation, product or service, but how willing are we to provide a well-rounded perspective, one that recognises alternative perspectives from the organisation or difficult-to-deny ‘truths’.

These may be truths that the organisation recognises as being a truth, but certainly may not position it favourably with it’s stakeholders by encouraging awareness and/or discussion of them.

So is it commercially pragmatic not to mention these uncomfortable truths?

Well, that’s the million dollar question and the scene for many an opinionated stoush between organisational management, lawyers and PR professionals!

Being pragmatic plays out in different ways:

• The topic is about the organisation; the organisation is paying for the communication; the organisation employs us – it’s hard to justify ‘promoting’ information that is critical of or negative towards the organisation (Don’t we trust who we work for, after all?)
• If the negative or critical information is already being discussed openly amongst stakeholders, surely it is pragmatic to recognise faults, failings, negative perceptions to help generate respect towards the organisation and its willingness to acknowledge issues that may be uncomfortable to it. This at least helps form the basis of a mutually respectful conversation which has excellent potential to enhance (and/or protect) the organisation’s reputation more than would have otherwise occurred (and, um, build more trust)
• Being proactive in informing stakeholders about issues – potentially relevant to its operations, products, services – before they are even aware of them is difficult and uncomfortable for organisations. But it might just gain them enhanced respect and credibility for undertaking this action, especially if it is inevitable that the stakeholders find out about the issues anyway. Which, in most situations, will be the case!

Further subtleties are that whilst an organisation might take a reputation/sales hit if it is proactive in flagging negative issues about it, perhaps it is forced to do so by law/regulations.

It also may be that due to the different stakeholders it has and their relative, holistic importance, it may be that the organisation will have a negative experience with one stakeholder (e.g. local community) but a positive experience with another (e.g. politicians) as a result of negative information disclosure.

The complexities of relative stakeholder importance and the way they influence each other always adds an interesting dimension to decisions made about information provision, including the timing of its release.

Why and where to use power in PR decision making

How you go about making decisions about disclosure and the application of power goes to the heart of an organisation’s values. And values will be embedded in its corporate (or business) plan….hopefully.

Is your corporate communication and/or engagement plan aligned with the corporate plan? I should hope so! I should also hope interaction with stakeholders and their importance to organisational objectives has been integrated with the corporate plan.

For any organisation to survive in the longer term it needs, to some degree at least, the permission of its stakeholders to operate and, possibly, to even exist. The nature of organisational engagement and communication will influence this paradigm, as well as corporate plan impact.

Then we go back to the point I made in my opening. Organisations have a responsibility to society as a whole, not just to their directly linked stakeholders. The world is too inter-connected for organisations to isolate themselves from society as a whole. Those organisations that operate in a purely self-serving manner will eventually suffer a reduced quality in their stakeholder relationships which will negatively impact on them achieving their corporate plan objectives.

Which is where we, as public relations professionals, have an opportunity and responsibility to help our organisations remove the blinkers, consider the ramifications of their activity and develop business models and corporate plans that will ensure their longevity and effectiveness.

When and where to you think you should disclose negative ‘truths’ about themselves? Is your organisation’s communication/engagement plan aligned with its corporate plan? Do you think that organisations have as much power as they always have with the emergence of social media and societal changes in the last 20 years?

My favourite Nipper at work

I would like to think I’ve been at least marginally helpful in developing the kids’ potential, including becoming better human beings, mainly through a focus on sportsmanship and supporting your teammates.

In this regard, in both my surf lifesaver Nippers age management and football (i.e. soccer) coaching roles, I have been fortunate to work with, and learn from, those far more experienced, competent and wise than myself.  My colleagues have been fundamental to the kids’ development and enjoyment, as well as my own.

The children, though, have been the biggest teachers of all. They have influenced the way I think about and practice PR, business and, well, life for that matter. They might even have helped me become a better father, but of that I’m not convinced.

My children leadership roles have occurred all because I was lucky enough to have a son. The enrichment he has given me is unimaginable to the person I was before he came along. I highly recommend it!

1. Humility

No one is perfect. In kids leadership it has been emphasised to me in stark fashion that mistakes are there to learn from, not agonise over. Learn from those less experienced, as well as your peers. Life and professional enrichment opportunities surround us.

2. Revel in the moment

So much of our lives are spent trying to reach a goal – a destination. But you know what? We spend most of the time on the journey, not at the destination. Kids absolutely love the journey, as long as it is fun for them. Let’s make all of our journeys more fun! We have the power, in most cases, for this to be so.

3. Recognise achievement

Wrong.

Recognise effort. Recognise improvement. Recognise participation.

Or maybe wrong again. If effort, improvement and participation = achievement, then what a great achievement!

4. Winning loses

Research has rammed home again and again that with young children participation and having fun is vastly more important than winning. Very, very few kids will up being professional sportspeople. It is far more important to develop an enthusiasm in them for sport so they don’t end up amongst obesity statistics and have a more involved, healthy attitude to life.

The same can be said for PR and marketing. We’re not all going to win prizes. We’re not all going to be top of the class. Encourage realisation of potential and doing your best; not a win or die, or be the best or feel humiliated attitude.

Developing a positive can-do attitude and a dedication to your field/sport/professional endeavour is far more important, realistic and healthy than a fixation with ‘winning’. And far less superficial and cancerous for self-esteem.

You know what, I don’t think so!

Juggling the PR role and the 'real world'

If anything, I think that PR is similar to many other professions in that the challenges of having children, then raising them, leads to many women leaving the profession before they have fulfilled their potential. Or, if they don’t leave the profession, then they continue in it on a part-time basis but with responsibilities that do not reflect their talent.

I think PR should be doing a hell of a lot better in this area than it does, notwithstanding that I am sure there are plenty of good news stories out there about organisations adapting around women juggling family and work.

And nor do I think that it should necessarily be women sacrificing their careers to bring up baby.

Work-life balance: more than family

But work-life balance is about more than family. For instance, I coach an U7 football team as well as manage a group of U7 boys Nippers (surf life saving). Now, you can probably tell I just happen to have a seven year old son and that is clearly the reason why I am involved in these activities. But a large group of boys, and by extension their families and the broader community, benefit from the time I put into these activities.

This is not to pay myself on my back. I have found that these activities inspire me and the boys give a lot more back to me with their enthusiasm and openness and friendliness than I could ever hope to give to them. But it does broaden out the spectrum of work-life balance. There are many of people out there with no children selflessly serving the community in ways such as this that deserves recognition from their paid employers because of their contribution to society.

I have worked in organisations that encourage such activity and make (paid) allowances for it, but one of the tragedies is that the higher up the corporate ladder you get the less room there is for this sort of community involvement. It’s generally likely to be seen as expedient and indulgent.

What a shame, then, that those who have proved themselves in the heat of the corporate hearth, and no doubt have many management capabilities that could be put to good worth in an unpaid, community-benefitting capacity, are ruled out due to work pressures.

It’s reality. It’s life. I know. But gee, it sucks doesn’t it!

The PR options in work-life balance

I have my own business, so I have the perfect opportunity to have wonderful work-life balance – right?

Well, yes, but I fail and I fail often.

The challenges of running my own business have their own clock: doing paid work, finding new work, marketing the business. It is very, very hard being disciplined enough to stick to the schedule and make time to play with that 7 year old every afternoon!

In PR agencies it is a very pressured existence, generally more so than the in-house environment. The shifting vagaries and demands of clients…they expect you to be there when they need you, not according to any schedule that may have been set up previously and not at the whim of an agency employee’s personal life.

This is simply how agencies work. Over the longer term, the client-agency relationship becomes more fluid, but beware…any agency or consultant that does not fit in with the client’s schedule will not have that client for much longer!

Working in-house, there are the corporate, government and NFP environments. I don’t know much about NFP, but government in general is more fluid on work-life balance, with flexi-time often being an option for less experienced practitioners and the hours often being less. But this isn’t guaranteed……….

Do you keep the PR job and personal balls all in the air?

Leadership in work-life balance

Leaders (well, unfortunately these are managers all too often, rather than actual leaders) should take the lead in work-life balance. This manifests itself in two ways:

• Actually applying work-life balance themselves
• Ensuring, as best they can, those who report to them apply work-life balance.

In my experience, it’s actually more difficult to do the former than the latter.

What you can do to achieve work-life balance

At the end of the day, whilst for sure the employer/boss will make ground rules regarding work-life responsibility, it’s a two-way street and individuals, ultimately, need to take a large degree of responsibility for their own work-life balance.

• Once you are offered a position, the bargaining power is with you. You are the preferred, desired candidate. Use this power to negotiate an acceptable work-life balance
• Once you lock this work-life balance into place, make sure you apply it. Don’t get it and not use it from the very start, otherwise your habits become accepted and you lose the advantage
• Leaving early a couple of days a week (maybe starting early to go with it) and working from home one or two days a week are great options. Plenty of research has identified working from home leads to better work outcomes (just like research says offices lead to higher productivity than open-plan offices), but in both cases employers mostly prefer to ignore the evidence…

I have had an experience or two where the work-life balance options are negotiated in but the employer tries to renege. Either by blatantly roadblocking me when push comes to shove, or applying more subtle pressure.

Don’t let them get away with it. Stand up for your rights, what you have agreed to. But make sure it is in writing! And it wouldn’t hurt if the employer communicated it to other employees so they understand the situation. There are those that will look down their nose at you because they consider you a ‘slacker’.

The reality these days is that every contract is an individual one. There is no such thing as generic. All power to you for empowering yourself. Don’t feel bad that you were smart enough to negotiate a workplace agreement/contract that suits your lifestyle.

The more people that do it, the more it will occur. You are an inspiration, not a ‘golden child’.

What are your thoughts on work-life balance in PR? Have you got positive news for us, particularly if you are a woman? What are some solutions to issues I have flagged above?

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 perspectives.

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!

I wonder, does it also mean that women are better at PR than men or, alternatively, have a head start over them?

You tell me!

For me, it definitely means that women have a head start. I read an excellent academic exploration of this issue a number of years ago and, to the best of my memory, this post explores some of the points, and others, it made.

Empathy

This is one area where women come out ahead of men. And this doesn’t just mean showing empathy, it means actually feeling what the other person or organisation is feeling. By having this feeling, some might argue that it gives a valuable additional dimension to the more intellectual quality of understanding the other person’s or organisation’s situation.

I am not implying that men have a greater intellectual capability to understand another’s situation. As far as I am concerned, women and men are equal on the intellectual capability scorecard.

But on this point, like others noted here, I am sure psychologists would have a field day.

Empowerment

It has been purported that women are better than men at sharing power, encouraging and mentoring employees (including direct reports) and sharing and giving praise.

Personally, I have experienced women bosses doing this to a very high standard. I have also experienced the reverse. If push comes to shove, however, I tend to think this is a generally accurate presumption.

Creativity in PR

There is no question that creativity is absolutely necessary if you are going to succeed in public relations. It is necessary, and appreciated, at all levels of the field. One of the challenges of being creative is being so within constraints: financial, reputation, positioning – all have limitations as to where creativity can go.

I tend to think that this is one reason why women dominate PR. They can let go, more easily than men, of the strictures that inhibit the mind from flying free and coming up with fresh ideas.

Women are better writers than men

Oh ho – now we’re getting onto something!

This is an extension of the creativity theme, to a degree, but also simply that some might say women have a tendency to go for arts and men are more inclined to the sciences. Now I am not so sure about this at all (though stats may well bear it out), but I do know that writing is the number one PR skill.

It is even more important than being a genuinely nice person, which is pretty high up the list.

As for me, I’m not sure women are better writers at all, but I’ve certainly come across some fantastic ones.

Conversational

I tend to think that, partly due to the greater degree of empathy that women possess, they are superior at having conversations with a wide range of people. They are more relaxed with people and can facilitate conversations better than men.

Perhaps this is coloured by my own inadequacies in the conversationalist realm (I’m a terrible ‘function networker’!), but I genuinely think this is the case. And this capability of women extends into non-face-to-face realms as well, providing an excellent basis for them to build meaningful relationships with stakeholders.

An interesting echo of this point is, according to research undertaken by Brian Solis, women are far more hooked into social media (um, a collection of conversational mediums when it’s humming) than men.

Women are more intelligent than men

Well, I am thinking high school results here. And how hard it is to get into PR university courses. It’s almost as difficult as getting into medicine and law last time I looked. And it’s my understanding that there are a lot more women getting into PR courses than men in Australia.

Ipso facto, better high school marks and more places in uni courses could reflect, and/or lead to, women being more intelligent than men.

Multitasking superiority in PR

Gemma Craven of Ogilvy said in the video interview below that women are better multi-taskers than men, with PR being a very heavy multi-tasking environment.

It is a fair enough observation, and at least one study confirms women’s multi-tasking superiority. But at the end of the day I don’t think being a poor multi-tasker stops men from entering the profession. It may impact on their rise through the ranks, but I highly doubt that less than ideal multi-tasking will prompt them to leave it.

So I don’t agree with this point being one of any significance.

Women are more ethical than men

Being ethical is a fundamental component of best practice PR. And women are definitely more ethical than men.

Or are they? Well, according to that great truth factory, Hollywood, they’re not. They’re equal. Just check this Thank You For Smoking clip.

Men in marcomms are too up themselves

In an interesting discussion from a couple of years ago in Australia’s Marketing magazine, Mark Ritson essentially said that women in marketing are more humble than men. The former are more likely to put the good of the organisation ahead of their own ego.

Interestingly, it’s all to do with women’s brains. They’re better than men’s – in marketing, and by extension PR, anyway.

Women and men in PR: and the winner is…

At the end of the day, of course, and don’t bore me and everyone else if this is the only comment you have, it is all about the individual. But do not forget one thing: women totally DOMINATE the numbers in PR. There must be real, tangible reasons for this.

So maybe some of the above points are true. Maybe they’re not? What do you think?

What aspects of women’s character that help them in PR and, perhaps, give them an advantage over men in the field have I missed? Are men or women inherently better at PR? Or where do you think men have an advantage over women? Or, simply, is there NO ADVANTAGE between the sexes when it comes to the practice of PR?

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

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!

Why did you use the opening line – ‘Does Your Corporate Reputation Have New Owners?’ –  for Reputation Renegades?

It was my personal wake-up call for corporate affairs. I thought:  if I was a crazily overworked corporate affairs exec, I’d like someone to draw this stuff to my attention.

It bubbled up from my own professional epiphanies over the past few years in seeing the influence of web-based communities grow: observing virtual tribes incrementally increase their impact on corporate reputation.

 So this influence is still seen as trivial by many corporations. The funny thing is that it was – and still is – bloody hard to define and target influencers in the ‘real’ world, let alone online.

Now that the e-Book has been published for about a month, I’m more satisfied that it wasn’t too far out-there. It’s had good feedback.

Pleasingly, I saw it reflected in the recent Boss magazine in the opening line to the article, ‘Brand We.’

It reads: “Forget brand management – it’s no longer in your hands. In the future, your customer community will control your brand.” For brand – read ‘corporate reputation.’ It headed a great story by Rachel Botsman about her new book ‘Collaborative Consumption’.

The pivotal message in Renegades is control. Corporations are all about keeping control: as they’ve done since corporations began.

But they aren’t. Control and ownership of brand/reputation is changing hands.

Just ask BP.

The issue is not that corporate affairs exec are sticking fingers in their ears and yelling ‘not listening.’

It’s that those who own and run corporations don’t feel the need yet for change: especially in response to invisible stakeholder groups hidden on the internet.

Let’s face it, corporations are quite odd entities. We retain expectations that they will behave in some humanised way. The sad fact is that they were never created with such empathy in mind. They are legal constructs: defensive enclaves with regulatory moats and thick walls of limited liability. Behind this fortress the aim is simply to meet profit targets.

But times change. “These fortresses are under siege,” as the bible, ‘The Cluetrain Manifesto’ says.

‘Renegades’ is divided into sections titled Ready, Aim, Fire. In ‘Fire’ you use the term ‘reputation’ as a 10 lettered mnemonic call-to-action. Tell me more about these three: –

1. Allies
   The tactic here is for corporate affairs to recruit in-house cadres: allies. While the C-suite and Board may not want change when it comes to comms, within the company there will be many who do. They will likely be passionate users of social media too. So create an army of partisans: quietly – up in the hills. Don’t try and do it all on your own. Magic some critical mass for in-house momentum to include, rather than exclude, when it comes to comms.
2. Tell tales
   Simply, this is about humanising. We love stories. Wherever you can, drop the use of polished corporate speak. (Take a lead from Don Watson’s ‘Bendable Learnings’ in this regard.) Allow internal corporate communications to be as natural as you can. Allow us, please, to tell our stories in our own words. Social media is not just about the web; it’s a state of mind that’s about warm, humane, empathic communications.
3. Trust.
   This big warm and fuzzy is often overlooked. The issue with most corporations, as the Edelman Trust Barometer shows, is that trust has evaporated. So the recommendation here is for corporate affairs execs to tackle this head-on. To purposefully (and probably awkwardly and painfully) ask difficult questions at meetings that seek ways to bring back trust. Not easy. But you have to start somewhere, so get it out on the table.

Corporate affairs has a tough job. They have to toe the corporate line because.. well .. they wrote it.

Reputation Renegades acknowledges this and details some tactics whereby enlightened professionals might consider bringing about change: hopefully without calls by the CEO for an inquisition or worse: the burning of a heretic.

What inspired you to write it?

At parkyoung over the past year we have studied the impact of the web on societal communications. During this review it struck me that corporations, which lead our society in so many important ways, were really dragging the chain in responding to the hyper-connected market.

The fact that most corporations remained unenlightened – and were comfortable about it – was a real epiphany for me. I was encouraged, however, that deep inside these big organisations there’s a growing number of enlightened ‘guerrilla’ PRs who are becoming ‘reputation renegades.’

The kick-start came when I attended one of Jen Frahm’s workshops featuring the guru David Meerman Scott.

I was really not that familiar with the e-Book medium at all. He was such a passionate advocate for them. I really took to the informality of e-Books: his especially.

At this business workshop, business colleague Yvonne Adele, nudged me and said: “Betcha you can’t write one in a month.”

It took six.

David Park

David Park

Author of corporate affairs manifesto Reputation Renegades, David Park (a.k.a. Parky) has over 20 years experience in corporate affairs in both in-house and consultancy roles. He entered PR via an urban planning background that gave him a strategic approach which he has applied to comms ever since. He describes his in-house career as very ‘beery’ with 11 years with Lion Nathan and over 5 with Foster’s. He runs Melbourne-based strategic communications advisory firm, parkyoung, with PR Warrior Trevor Young.

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!

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!

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!