David Park is the author of a change manifesto for corporate affairs managers, Reputation Renegades, which is a free, downloadable e-Book. Renegades addresses many issues, but chief amongst them is the fallacy that corporations have control of their reputation. In this guest post, he provides answers to three pivotal questions that shaped the resource.

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.

Tweet This Post

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

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

Journalists are great writers

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

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

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

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

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

Pressure cooker journalism

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

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

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

Strategic high-level communication

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

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

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

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

The ‘truth’

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

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

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

Journalism and public relations: bed partners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet This Post

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

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

PR is full of those who can’t strategise

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

David Fluhrer

Public and Investor Relations Advisor, various organisations

Unlike old dogs, journalists can learn new tricks

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

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

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

Ravi Sinha

CEO, TRACK2MEDIA

Don’t mention the war…

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

Paul Dumitru

Journalist, MONEY Express

Journalists really, truly do ‘get’ strategy

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

Gyula Kovacs

Coordinator, Communications, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada

It’s a big PR world out there

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

Stephen Lawton

Owner / Consultant, AFAB Media Services

Journos’ skills sharpened by the ‘wars’

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

Sonya Snyder

CEO & President, Quill Communications, Inc

PR is more than pitching to media

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

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

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

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

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

Steven Spenser

Principal, Praxis Communication/Seattle

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

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

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

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

Michael Shmarak

President/Principal, Sidney Maxwell Public Relations

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

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

Tweet This Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

Journalists’ attitudes are too negative to build relationships

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

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

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

Stakeholder advocates

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

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

Public relations requires leadership

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

Communication strategy

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

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

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

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

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

Public relations’ tactical breadth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a world of difference between the two professions.

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

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

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

Tweet This Post

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

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

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

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

Enjoy!

Journalists don’t do dialogic

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

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

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

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

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

Catherine Guyder

PR Account Manager, Wordstorm

Research, behaviour changing and communication strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angela Sinickas

Owner, Sinickas Communications

Poor journos discriminated against – hold the headline!

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

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

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

Geoff Barbaro

Leadership communications professional

Journalists defend themselves

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

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

Michael McWilliams

Public interest communicator, advocate, and social entrepreneur

Journalists never succeed

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

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

Roger Bentley

Global Communication Lead, Cargill

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

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

Tweet This Post

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

Getting participants to attend a round table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facilitating a round table

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

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

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

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

An alternative approach to round tables: leadership engagement and positioning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet This Post

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

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

Strategic communication results with target audiences

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

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

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

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

A round table (RT) is generally constituted of:

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

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

The credibility factor

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

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

Elements of a marketing communication round table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet This Post

A crisis communication plan that does not include social media is incomplete and seriously flawed. This was the overarching key message to come from Frocomm’s 2nd Annual Crisis Communication & Social Media Summit 2009.

I wrote the content for a free report summarising summit presenters’ key points , whilst also adding value through the identification of additional resources and perspectives, including a few of my own. The report  is available here: Crisis communication & social media summit 2009: a report.

Please share the report with your colleagues and peers. Then if you like it, feel free to raise awareness of this free report through your own social networks.

The summit featured an array of heavyweight Australian public relations industry thought leaders from leading consultancies and public and private sector organisations, providing participants with an abundance of crisis communication “brain nutrition”.

In fact, as the communication programs of many organisations, especially government ones, still do not reflect the impact social media is having, it may well be that crisis communication becomes (or is) the first toe in the social media waters for them.

Key themes of the summit included:

• The need for social media guidelines for employees
• Understanding what is going on in the social media space before entering it
• The speed of social media and this being a double‐edged sword
• The power of pictures and video, especially on free websites like YouTube
• The challenges and opportunities to protect and build trust towards an organisation
• The opportunities social media provide for direct communication with stakeholders
• The influence social media‐driven information is having on traditional media coverage
• Social media should not be used at the expense of other, existing methodologies.

A brief overview of the summit report was previously posted on this blog. Also, a slightly revised selection of many aspects of the report will be posted on this blog in coming weeks.

Any comment on the report is most welcome – what did you think of the propositions and rationales speakers put forward?

Tweet This Post

Social media is a double-edged sword for crisis communication. On the one hand, it allows issues to be identified, monitored and managed extremely quickly. It also allows for real-time interaction with stakeholders, providing a mechanism through which disinformation ‘spot fires’ can be put out before they turn into raging bushfires.

Potentially, and perhaps a bit extremely, a crisis – in tandem with social media – actually provides an opportunity for stakeholder engagement and relationship enhancement.

But that’s the good news! The flip side is that, as Laurel Papworth has observed, social media has a ripple effect. It allows for news to spread – yes, that burning metaphor again – like wildfire. And nothing sells quite like bad news. This goes for social as much as traditional media. There are a plethora of examples where social media mechanisms have facilitated, and accelerated, a reputational hammering for organisations.

These fiery themes were all-pervasive at the recent Frocomm crisis communication and social media summit I attended. Other key take-outs included:

• having social media guidelines in place before engaging fully through social media and, as per any crisis situation, being as prepared as possible
• knowing who the influencers on opinion are likely to be and proactively forming positive relationships with them (as they might assist in facilitating and optimising message clarity through the stress and disinformation of a crisis ‘bushfire’)
• not necessarily immediately jumping in to a situation that looks like a crisis: use social media tools to monitor and assess the situation’s genesis and then determine an appropriate response
• that the first six hours of the ‘situation’ are critical in determining what the best response will be
• CSR, as an organic, fully lived-in’ organisational characteristic, is an excellent way to proactively build reputation and provide ‘insurance’ in preparation for the inevitable crisis.

Further salient points that the range of articulate and well qualified speakers made included:

• Social media is a part of communication, not separate from it, so tactics such as traditional media and direct stakeholder communication need to be integrated with the social media dimension
• A crisis is no place to learn about social media; the implication being that if you aren’t prepared to engage in a social media context with your stakeholders before the crisis hits, forget about it as a communication mechanism during the crisis (though it will still have utility to monitor how stakeholders are responding to crisis-relevant messages and, therefore, could shape non-social media communication)
• The importance of discipline
  • Make sure team roles are determined and understood
  • Rehearsing crisis situations is a fundamental part of crisis preparedness
  • Have key messages for situations prepared and a process in place for producing them ‘on the run’ during a crisis, which includes the sign off process
  • Once content goes up on the web, it stays on the web. Issues can re-enter the online conversation years after the initial crisis has blown over (e.g. through the re-circulation or promotion of an incriminating video). Message: be prepared for this eventuality.

Leadership

Leadership was a sub-text of many aspects of the discussions and presentations held during the day, especially those by Cannings‘ Craig Badings and Rupert Hugh-Jones from Scaffidi Hugh-Jones.

It was apparent in the mere fact that a relatively recent (but now pretty much accepted part of the professional communication tool box) phenomena such as social media was being discussed as a vital part of such a sensitive process as crisis communication.

It was apparent in the assertion that engaging with stakeholders takes fortitude and strong leadership. It is the antithesis of a head-in-the-sand, hoping-it-will-blow-over and non-stakeholder engagement approach.

And it was apparent in the notion that by standing tall and taking responsibility for an organisation’s actions (and that includes failings and faults) takes leadership and vision, as a short-term crisis may in fact galvanise an organisation to transform itself into an entity more in line with stakeholder expectations. This, as I constantly reiterate, is likely to help an organisation and its stakeholders form more mutually beneficial, and hence sustainable, long term relationships.

Tactical elements

There were plenty of tactical, hands-on tips provided through presenters such as Ogilvy’s Brian Giesen, Edleman’s Amanda Little, Howorth’s Graham White, Rupert Hugh-Jones and others, many  of which I’ll expand upon in a future post and also in Frocomm’s PR Report. Some of these tips were:

• It is best to have a non-communication/public relations employee talking to bloggers
• ‘Dark’ websites featuring pre-prepared information are a useful tool  
• A webcast of organisational statements can be uploaded, making for a ‘media conference’
• Use keyword advertising
• Advertise on blog forums and communities discussing the issue
• Use a dashboard for issues monitoring (examples include Tweetdeck and Ogilvy’s The Daily Influence
• Use an ‘authentic’, human voice for social media interaction
• Video is a messaging tool of high utility
• Forums are particularly applicable to Australia
• Ensuring that an organisation determines and communicates a consistent crisis narrative and set of key messages
• Twitter is good at getting the message out.
Ogilvy PR 360 DI Twitter Webinar
View more documents from guestfd8f1.

I was a guest at the Frocomm summit but these observations on proceedings are my own. There will be further discussion on the summit on this blog and in Frocomm’s free PR Report (to subscribe visit its website). All comments on this post – including disagreeing ones! – are of course most welcome.

Tweet This Post

There are multiple benefits to being a member of an industry association. And not just for yourself. Being a member also benefits your professional peers – especially those who are less experienced – and the (relevant) profession itself.

Importantly, and this is intrinsically salient for public relations professionals more than most other professions, being a member of an industry association is at least partially a selfless, sharing, positive act.

All about me

Okay, so let’s start with you, the centre of your world…

Being a member of an industry association is an indication to others that you take your profession, and by extension your career, seriously. It says you:

1. care about your profession
2. value continuing professional education
3. are in touch with contemporary developments in your field.

This engenders respect from potential direct employers and recruiters. It may even be the difference between you getting a role and not getting a role. Let’s face it, who would you rather employ, someone who ticks points 1, 2 and 3 above or someone who doesn’t?

Getting a job (and even building a career) is a competition. Are you a winner or a loser?

Any good industry association will have the continuing professional education of its members as close to its highest priority. There is a good reason for this: unless you keep up to date with developments in your profession then you will not be the best possible practitioner you can be.

Your potential, simply put, will not be realised without ongoing professional education. It’s your choice. What makes most sense to you?

In the public relations context, the Public Relations Institute of Australia provides education to its members in the form of seminars, conferences and e-newsletters, whilst the Australian chapters (NSW and Victoria) of the International Association of Business Communicators provide seminars, discussion papers and a magazine. Both have a library of resources accessible to members.

Being a member provides you with a plethora of networking opportunities. Why is this useful? Well, it provides an opportunity to promote yourself: the ‘Me brand’. You can:

• meet potential employers
• meet recruiters
• meet peers who can tell you about new opportunities
• learn from your peers and event presenters
• put forward your own ideas to engage with and impress people (thought leadership), potentially leading to new opportunities and professional relationships. These may not benefit your career in the short term, but that is irrelevant if you are in your industry for the long term.

Industry associations, as noted above, communicate with their members in a number of ways. By exhibiting thought leadership through articles and/or seminar presentations you contribute, you are once again adding equity to your ‘Me brand’.

The more individuals that join an industry association the stronger it can be. The more funds it has allows for the generation of more frequent and higher quality resources. This is to your and your peers’ collective benefit.

These resources often include recruitment services and mentoring services (and whilst both help practitioners get jobs, the latter helps enhance practitioners’ ability and self-esteem).

The power of numbers can also help industry associations gain greater respect for the industry through forums such as the media and government (the latter helping impact on regulation). The former, in the instance of public relations, should help raise the profile of the industry and increase respect for it, thus potentially making those who work within it prouder of, and happier to work within, their profession.

Another ancillary outcome of larger numbers in associations can be reduced prices for products and services for members that the associations can negotiate.

(Just for the record, I think the PRIA and IABC in Australia both do a shithouse job of gaining greater respect for the industry through the media and government relations. It is their major failing, as much as I advocate being a member of one or both of them for the plethora of reasons enumerated in this post.)

The final benefit I can think of to an individual for being an industry association member is being able to enter industry awards. If you do well in these there are a number of potential upshots:

• Your self-esteem is enhanced
• Your resume is enhanced, which leads to more rewarding roles
• Your understanding of what best practice entails is enhanced and, if you use this knowledge wisely, you will become more proficient at your job.

All about your peers

Public relations, as a professional discipline, is analogous to leadership. Being a member of an industry association is taking a leadership position. It says you care about your profession and want to make a difference.

It says you are, at least to some degree, involved.

We make a greater difference when we are part of a team. It doesn’t mean individual brilliance or perspectives cannot be exhibited outside the confines of the team, but it will enhance the impact of both the individual and the team/group initiatives if both exist to their optimum level.

Being a leader, in this context, also says to younger and/or less experienced practitioners that you care about the profession and that attempting to excel is the only way to achieve the best possible outcomes. Not being a member of an industry association says you are self-centred to the detriment of the industry as a whole.

This is a particularly relevant perspective for those who are more experienced in their profession. It’s my belief that the greater individual benefits of being a member of the PRIA and the IABC are for those with less professional experience, but for the reasons I have just espoused, it is equally important for those who have been around the block to ensure they are members of an industry association.

Conclusion

There is an attitude amongst some people that they are too cool to join an industry association. This is a deluded perspective. The opposite is the truth.

I have benefited considerably from being a member of the PRIA, especially when I was a less experienced professional. I was mentored through PRIA auspices, have learnt a lot through events it has held, have met many professional peers who I have learnt from and formed rewarding professional and personal relationships with. I have also used its resources to help set up a freelance business.

Sure, being an industry association member can be frustrating at times, but it is a low-cost way of contributing to the industry as a whole and giving yourself opportunities for proficiency and career enhancement. It is up to each individual how passive or active they make their membership.

 What are industry associations doing right and wrong from your perspective? Where is there room for improvement? Please, share your thoughts.

Tweet This Post