This is a guest post from Paul Ritchie*, an experienced public relations practitioner who has just published Stay On Message^, a book which explains the principles of professional communication and how they interact with context, narrative, framing and the media cycle.

The most common thought that is contained within crisis management literature is that somehow a crisis is just an external event that can be managed with the right level of resources and preparation. My view is that this is incomplete and it misses the most dangerous variable in any crisis and that is the way a spin doctor actually responds to the issue.

Stay On Message by Paul Ritchie

Time and time again, we see crises spin out of control because of the miscalculations of the spin doctor or the organisation he or she represents.

A crisis first and foremost is a time for good judgment, yet often under the pressure of the moment we retreat to the default mechanisms that define our own behaviour. It’s hard to believe but most of us under pressure move to a way of operating that, more often than not, is our general default. For some it is to shout, for others it’s to lock the door and search for data, for others it is to blame someone and, for others still, they downplay the crisis or even deny it is happening.

I suggest that spin doctors, more often than not, make seven common mistakes in a crisis. These mistakes are the result of our own default mechanisms. The challenge for the spin doctor is to understand their own defaults, so that when a crisis hits, they can actually be aware of their weaknesses and work around them.

These are the seven most common mistakes of a spin doctor in a crisis that I identify in my new book, Stay on Message.

1. Not asking for help

The speed and overwhelming intensity of a crisis demands the willingness and capability of a spin doctor to say, “I can’t do this alone”, and to call in help from other business units, or from an external public affairs firm.

2. Underestimating the danger

No one likes bad news and no one likes to be the person who brings bad news. In some organisations, to give bad news is akin to isolating yourself from the mainstream of an organisation. Think of Enron, Wall Street financiers who believed a market could never fall, NASA’s space shuttles, or the Catholic Church dealing with child abuse, or the Greek Government wildly spending money. It takes courage to confront prevailing worldviews or cultures that are crumbling internally.   

As the interface between an organisation and the public, the spin doctor has a responsibility to his or her organisation to provide fearless, frank and honest advice about how to best manage the organisation’s reputation, and they also have a responsibility to the public and the media to ensure that the information provided is trustworthy and reliable.

Paul Ritchie

3. Throwing out your quality control

 A crisis, by its nature, brings uncertainty and confusion and a testing of character that is remembered long after the intricacies of the events themselves are forgotten.

There is a tendency in a crisis for spin doctors to cut corners and throw away the normal quality control processes that typically guide the production of materials and the preparation for media conferences and interviews. To cut corners and throw away the processes that make your materials and responses accurate and robust is a false choice. Quality control is the key to producing reliable work, and these processes should not be junked in a crisis.

4. Using weasel words

Spin doctors have forgotten that part of their work involves saying uncomfortable things. Somewhere along the way, many spin doctors have come to believe that weasel words are the best way to pacify anger.

Weasel words allow a spin doctor to slice and dice a response, while thinking that by not providing real answers and not acknowledging the premise of an issue or accepting responsibility, then somehow the issue will go away. Instead of pacifying anger, however, weasel words galvanise anger, with the audience muttering to themselves, “they don’t get it”.

5. Providing false assurance

There is something deep within most people that says that, even in the darkest of circumstances, everything is going to be okay. This human yearning for reassurance has an important place in life, particularly in providing encouragement to loved ones at difficult times. However, there is a world of difference between holding the hand of a sick loved one and saying, “You’re going to be okay” and lying to them by saying, “The doctor says you will be home in 24 hours.”

The difference between false assurance and reassurance is a narrow one. Reassurance seeks to create strength out of pre-existing trust, whereas false assurance seeks to create that same confidence out of false premises.

For spin doctors who are managing the media response to a crisis, misplaced or false assurance can actually exacerbate a situation. False information in a crisis breaks trust with those seeking reliable information, harms the longer-term credibility of the spokesperson and, in a worst-case scenario, can actually cost lives.

6. Not accepting responsibility

Every crisis has a cause, or a series of causes. The powerful pressure of the principles of narrative means that in many crises, the quest to blame and punish someone commences almost immediately. That deep intrinsic yearning to make sense of things leads us all to instantaneously ask the question, “Whose fault is this?” When this question is asked, it sparks in others another basic human instinct, which is to avoid, hide from, or deny responsibility for their own mistakes and errors.

It is in assessing the issue of responsibility that the spin doctor has to move away from the traditional role of defending at all costs.

Traditionally, the work of spin doctors is to protect reputations, and because of this, most spin doctors instinctively gravitate towards providing a defence of any action. It is at this point in a crisis when many spin doctors make the terrible mistake of trying to explain and defend the organisation rather than seeking to answer the unfolding narrative. One of the worst mistakes a spin doctor can make in a crisis is to move immediately to a defensive position and not realise that he or she is defending the indefensible.

7. Getting caught flat-footed

Crises, by their nature are not planned. They can and do strike with little or no warning. They happen on weekends, at night or in the hours before you plan to head off on annual holidays – it is the spin doctors’ version of Murphy’s Law.

The need to communicate reliable and factual information quickly means that you have to be on top of your game and ready to go at a moment’s notice. The spin doctor’s email, fax and phone lists need to be up to date and backed up in multiple locations. Media monitoring must already in place and you have to be prepared for a failure in your organisation’s IT infrastructure. Its hard to get on the front foot if you are flat footed.

These are my seven most common mistakes in a crisis. If I have missed any let me know.

What do you think of Paul’s list of mistakes? Can you add others that should be high up on the list? Do you have personal experiences of your own that amplify what Paul has said? And on a lateral front, what do you think of him using the term ‘spin doctor’ for PR people!?

*Paul Ritchie has advised Australia’s largest institutions and political leaders on how to communicate their message for over 20 years. His work has provided him with unique insights into how organisations and political leaders position themselves in the media, how they develop narratives about what they do and how they behave when faced with a crisis. Paul has completed postgraduate study at Harvard University and the Australian Graduate School of Management. At Harvard, Paul studied the role of personal narrative, the rise of social media and the principles of adaptive organisational leadership.

^‘Stay on Message reveals the simple yet powerful tools that will allow you to communicate effectively and authentically in a world with unlimited media possibilities. It authentically explains the principles of communication and how they interact with context, narrative, framing and the media cycle. Stay on Message identifies the trends in new media and explains how to navigate this new media world. It is available from Vivid Publishing.

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

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

­Round table – media participation or not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White paper for public relations results

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

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

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

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

• Statistics
• Thought leadership.

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

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

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

Tweet This Post

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

In the B2B environment, op-eds (opinion pieces) can be much more effectively leveraged than in the B2C environment. Op-eds, as I have previously posted, are a valuable part of public relations and media relations strategies because of the media coverage they can generate and the positive thought leadership positioning they generate for organisations and individuals.

Normally, an op-ed will only be used once (certainly, that is the case for metro print media) but it can be utilised multiple times across various B2B industry sectors. I have done this in the past for organisations such as BOC and BlueScope Steel.

In fact, this same methodology can be applied, in the B2B media space, to the placement of case studies. Case studies, of course, have the additional advantage from a strategic communication and organisational positioning/branding perspective, of applying the a 3^rd party credibility approach.

Op-ed placement has an analogous 3^rd party impact as they are placed in media outlet that, in theory at least, has credibility and influence with the target audience. So the mere fact that the op-ed is in this media outlet enhances the credibility of the spokesperson/organisation as the spokesperson/organisation brand is inextricably entwined with that of the media outlets.

Placing op-eds multiple times

Placing op-eds (or case studies) multiple times is possible for public relations professionals when the client organisation has relevance across multiple industry sectors (e.g. engineering, mining, manufacturing, construction etc) and each of these sectors has sector-specific media titles. The titles are generally print but can also be online.

The basic premise is that the op-ed is offered to one media title from each industry sector. Each specific vertical business media outlet is told they are the only media outlet in that specific industry being offered the piece. You then offer it to other media outlets from a different industry.

A key element of this approach is never calling it an ‘exclusive’, which implies the media outlet has the single, ONLY use of this op-ed. If you do this when you shop your op-ed around to other media titles your relationship with the media will be shot down in flames and the credibility of your client organisation will also take a battering.

Sometimes, there are B2B media titles that cross over into various industry sectors. In this case you need to play this game carefully. I would counsel being upfront with the relevant, potentially conflicting, media titles with your approach. Quite often they will be fine with it as one of the industries they cover may very much be a secondary focus for them. Most of the time, however, avoid this where you can.

So, what are your thoughts on information in this post? Have you applied any of these approaches? How did they go? What have I missed out on that is crucial in undertaking these approaches? Do you have a B2B-specific experience you can share with us?

Tweet This Post

Op-eds, as I have previously posted, are a valuable part of public relations and media relations strategies. This is because of the media coverage they can generate and the positive positioning, through thought leadership, they generate. An additional, and extremely valuable, characteristic of the op-ed is that its topic, and the content that is generated as part the op-ed scoping process, can also be used to generate more than a single media placement.

The thought leadership and op-ed (opinion piece) scoping process will always generate more information than can be contained within a single opinion piece. Two things can occur with this information:

• It can serve as the basis for another opinion piece
• It can be used as complementary information to support an issues-based campaign, aimed at generating multiple media placements, that ‘feeds’ off the initial single opinion piece placement and uses core information from that op-ed.

The key here is, as always, providing some fresh content customised to the needs of targeted media outlets. Similarly, it may be possible that the additional content not used in the initial opinion piece is strong enough to do a fairly similar pitch across different media.

It is always possible that stats/insights from overseas can be morphed into your program. This can, especially with some creative thinking and value-adding, provide a valuable dimension to the media program. This is the approach Deloitte, a multi-national professional services consulting, take – as can be seen from comments in my initial post on thought leadership and op-ed campaigns post.

Aspects to bear in mind if this methodology is applied include:

• Giving the op-ed exclusive to one outlet means they are, strategically, the most appropriate media outlet to  target (bearing in mind you may want to share the op-ed ‘goodies’ around over time)
• When it comes to mainstream media, you will only be able to place the op-ed in one outlet. That’s it. The exception being if one media organisation owns a variety of media outlets of relatively state-specific nature. For instance, in Australia that means you can potentially generate multiple placement of the one op-ed in The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Brisbane Times. But be upfront with the editors at all times. The reality is that there is competition for quality content internally, as well
• It can be a good way to generate extra coverage from a relatively similar ‘pot’ of IP
• Be careful of the ROI. Applying this approach often means the non-op-ed content is of lower quality than the op-ed content. Try not to let this happen, but is inevitable in some cases. If this is the case, be careful of over-promising results to clients/employers as they may not come through – perhaps more importantly, you don’t want to diminish the thought leadership potency of your work by promulgating 2^nd rate content or ‘thoughts’
• The timing/coordination of how the campaign is rolled out important – the op-ed and issues-based campaign need to work in concert with each other
• Liaise with the non op-ed media before the op-ed goes to print, and facilitate timely coverage by all means, but make sure there is no chance for your material to be printed/utilised before the op-ed hits the streets. You know the ramifications if this doesn’t occur – bad blood with media!

Leveraging the thought leadership

Another dimension of these approaches is that once you have confirmed an op-ed is being placed in a print or online media outlet (mostly relevant to mainstream metro media like The Australian), you can use the content to pitch to radio or even TV. You can do this the day before the story goes live or you can do it early in the morning of publication.

Radio producers always skim the newspapers (and their online variations these days) to see if there is anything they can explore further on their shows. Do them a favour, make it easy for them to fill up their shows with interesting content that will value-add to the original op-ed. Nice work if you can achieve it!

[I’ll talk more about multiple cross-industry placements of op-eds (of utility in a B2B context) in a future post.]

So, what are your thoughts on information in this post? Have you applied any of these approaches? How did they go? What have I missed out on that is crucial in undertaking these approaches?

Bookmark & Share

Tweet This Post

Media releases, whilst not entirely dead as a means of generating media coverage as part of a public relations strategy, are these days nowhere near as effective as establishing a thought leadership platform.

Establishing this platform helps generate media coverage through media utilisation of op-eds (opinion pieces) and, because the organisation/individual becomes known as an expert (or ‘talent’) on this topic, they actually call you for comment, rather than the other way around: every public relations professional’s dream come true!

Most media is tired of product announcements through media releases, but they can still be captivated by issues-driven campaigns underpinned by thought leadership (Craig Badings’ blog is a great resource on this topic). Three fundamental precepts of meaningful media coverage for thought leadership include:

• strategically targeting media relevant to organisational target audiences (appropriate vertical B2B media, mainstream metro, talkback radio etc). There is no point (other than ticking fatuous media coverage KPI boxes) in coverage for the sake of it. The KPIs should be driven by business and communication needs
• focusing on issues platforms relevant to organisational target audiences and, even if not all the time, they should be consistently relevant to the company’s service/product offering
• choosing wisely who will front the thought leadership campaign. Will it be one person or more? From a brand consistency perspective it is better to have one person, but it provides brand ‘insurance’ if more than one person is utilised, as employees can leave at any time. It is also possible to use different spokespersons for different sorts of campaigns in a customised manner (e.g. a technical, customer-facing person for technical issues and the CEO for broader issues such as supply and demand in the marketplace or sustainability).

There are a range of ways, or ‘steps’ if you like, to help develop thought leadership platforms. These include:

• undertaking ‘desktop’ research into key areas relevant to the organisation through the internet/media; looking overseas to identify useful information and potential platforms that can be refined for Australia (the recycling and recontextualising and freshening up of platforms/information is fine – in fact, it’s smart!)
• talk to any potentially relevant person you can in the organisation – marketing, business, technical etc – to inform you as to what the organisational needs and opportunities are, including for thought leadership itself; what are the target audiences looking for expertise on?
• holding workshops/brainstorming sessions with senior leadership: identify their interests and passions, both professional and non-vocational specific; what are they obsessed about/experts in? Don’t be afraid to probe and push and use what you have come up with in the preliminary research stage
• A combination of the above approaches is, of course, the best practice way to go.

When coming up with a draft list of thoughts, and this might be pre or post the leadership workshop, it is absolutely a good idea to have a chat with a few journos who are ultimately being targeted. Get their feedback on some of the thoughts/issues you have conceptualised to see if they would be interested in a point of view on it/them.

You need some themes/content to back up the question so you sound more credible, but it is okay to position it as a WIP. This is good for a relationship-building exercise with the media. Only use journos you trust for this, bearing in mind it is also a great way to build trust.

You should undertake this interaction before spending large amounts of time (i.e. client/employer money) developing the content anyway, as you may decide to drop an approach or dramatically reconfigure it to more closely meet media needs/interests.

An op-ed is a great way to kick off the thought leadership campaign. Different elements of the thought leadership platform can be focused on over a long period of time in different op-eds.

In future posts I’ll talk about leveraging the media interest generated by an op-ed placement and, in particular, how op-eds have an even greater opportunity in B2B media.

So, what are your thoughts on information in this post? Have you applied any of these approaches? How did they go? What have I missed out on that is crucial in undertaking these approaches?

Tweet This Post

There are a number of contenders for the most eye-rolling, can-you-believe-it dumb marketing and/or PR moment of 2009: loser marketers, the GFC and social media amongst them . But, thankfully, there have been plenty of inspirational examples of best practice professional communication too. Most importantly, what have we learnt during the year and how will it make us better communicators?

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

The ugly communication canards

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of best practice public relations

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

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

Getting better (at communicating) all the time

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

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

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

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

And for 2010?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet This Post

Why blog about public relations? Well, for me it is because of the discipline’s inherent drama, aptitude for telling interesting stories and constant shape-shifting. Public relations, marketing and their many strategic (e.g. corporate and marketing communication etc) and tactical permutations are the grist for my mill.

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

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

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

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

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

Since starting the blog in June, the blog has:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet This Post

Fires and flu: what a year. Worst of all for those suffering from the cataclysms. But a real challenge for public relations professionals working hard to inform and help the community. This post features insights shared by two of Australia’s preeminent public relations practitioners at Frocomm’s Crisis Communication & Social Media Summit 2009.

Fire

Amber Brodecky, Director Communities and Media Relations, for the Victorian Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner, led the crisis communication effort in response to the deadly Victorian Bushfires, Australia’s worst natural disaster, earlier this year.

A statistical summary of the tragedy is not able to reflect the anguish it caused, but the figures are sobering:

• 173 lives lost
• 2,000+ homes and businesses destroyed
• 1,500 properties damaged
• 430,000 hectares of land burnt
• Fires affected 78 Victorian communities across 25 municipalities.

Some web 2.0 tools were used to assist communication, but a model for strengthening their use as part of operational planning is currently being devised by the emergency services. The key principles that inform the communications approach still make for compelling reading, however. They include:

• An approach that is based not on spin, but providing information communities need to put in place safe behaviours
• Messaging that builds on the 9/11 model used by Rudy Giuliani:
  • What we know
  • What we don’t know
  • What we are doing
  • What we want you to do
  • Ensuring messages use a  ‘call to action’
  • Being realistic, real-time, disciplined, authoritative and two-way in communication
  • Taking the view that resilient communities are informed communities.

Amber said that the media were an important link in emergency management chain and they were viewed as partners, rather than a group that need to be managed. Similarly, local communities were also viewed as partners, playing a key role in their own safety planning.

The emergency services were also transparent in updating the public on fatalities and losses, with the view that an open, honest approach is best.

Flu

Porter Novelli provides another example of how selected social media tools and selected applications of those tools can b effectively applied. Sometimes, it isn’t necessary to throw the kitchen sink at the problem. As always, public relations professionals need to assess the situation, build the appropriate strategy and utilise the most efficacious tactics in the most effective manner.

Porter Novelli (PN) applied  social media tools to help Australian Pork Ltd (APL) in its  management of the communication dimension of the A/H1N1 (swine) flu epidemic this year.

PN’s corporate and crisis practice principal, Campbell Fuller, said social media was used to monitor conversations about swine flu and pork consumption and assess awareness and key message penetration. The challenge for APL and PN was to convince consumers that pork was safe to eat and the flu could not be contracted through eating pork, thus arresting falling meat sales.

Though Porter Novelli and APL were prepared to engage with consumers through social media to counter misinformation about eating pork and catching the flu, they found this was not necessary.

Instead, what Porter Novelli found was that:

• Coverage achieved in traditional media, especially TV news, syndicated radio programs and daily newspapers, and their online versions, easily flowed through to online and social media channels
• Active social media participants became advocates for pork
• Social media participants swiftly responded and corrected negative and incorrect information without any involvement from APL, posting links to mainstream sources
• Medical and veterinary experts, and ministers’ reassurances, were seen as credible, highlighting the importance of being able to call on strong stakeholder relationships established over many years
• Messaging surrounding the impact (i.e. lower sales/revenue, thus livelihood ramifications) the issue was having on farmers – a personal approach – had traction. Most people love a symbol
• Real primary producers appeared in the media to help show the human face of the crisis, leaving APL’s chief executive Andrew Spencer as the corporate spokesperson.

Porter Novelli used consumer surveys to measure changes in sentiment toward the purchase and consumption of pork. Within a month, negative sentiment was almost zero and pork sales had returned to almost pre-crisis levels.

What do you think of the approaches taken by these two organisations in their management of the crises? What could they have done better? What was done particularly well? What are the most important factors you have learnt from these two public relations professionals?

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

Tweet This Post