Chief Executive Graeme Leibelt was quoted as saying he had, “not heard anybody in authority suggest that the expansion plans should not go ahead.” This was in reference to chemical leaks potentially delaying enhancements at one of its plants.

This leak involved the release of a potentially cancer-causing agent, which NSW Health found posed no risks to residents of a nearby suburb – though as is the case in these sorts of issues, the residents themselves are doubtless not so sure.

The bigger stakeholder picture

Using Leibelt’s alleged quote as a basis for discussion, the issue which struck me was that companies and humans can often be so focused on their commercial and shareholder relationships they forget about – or minimise the importance of – the communities in which they operate.

This is a mistake for a number of reasons:

• Local communities will supply some of their employees. This can lead to lower morale=commitment=productivity from them = bottom line impact
• Employees are an organisation’s most effective and important communicators. If they are advocates, their influence is positive. If they are frustrated, their communication and their impact is negative
• Communities are made up of humans. Humans vote, they lobby, they influence politicians and politicians hate negative pressure and a negative spotlight being put on them. And politicians influence regulation that will impact on the company’s operating conditions, potentially compromising a company’s ability to run its own race.

Perhaps most importantly, the notion that it is people in “authority” are the only ones that matter, as implied in this alleged statement, communicates arrogance and a concern only with those that will adjudicate on the company and the way it operates.

This, in turn, implies a belief that it is not the welfare of the community, or larger society, which matters – it is the welfare of the company which overrides all others. For companies in this day and age to take this approach means they view social and environmental ramifications of their operations as being of secondary (if that) importance.

This is not a tenable approach as it is big business which runs society these days, not governments. And so big business needs to take on a greater responsibility than looking after its shareholders who hold stock.

All of us are their shareholders:

• We share their world
• We share the positive and negative impact they have on society and the environment
• And believe it or not – we have authority!

Public relations’ influence on hubris

There are two areas where public relations can influence an organisation to prevent the hubris and negative stakeholder perceptions that are inherent in Leibelt’s alleged quote:

• The culture, values and operating systems of the organisation
• The manner in which the organisation communicates especially, in this case, to the media.

Public relations is a positive social force, one that can impact positively on organisations so that they take the long view. This may mean compromised profit in the short term to help achieve longer term business objectives: short-term pain for long-term gain.

It is a management discipline that provides organisations with a means of understanding the needs, wants and issues of their stakeholders. With this understanding, organisations can evolve themselves, thus creating entities with more functional and productive relationships – including those of a regulatory, political and, yes, media nature.

Public relations is far more than a marketing adjunct. We are talking serious strategic and cultural heft, here.

On a more prosaic and tactical level, I think any public relations consultant would have taken fright at Leibelt’s alleged quote. Even if he believes it, he still shouldn’t have said it!

To help make sure this negative reputational quote didn’t occur, some of the following needed – or need – to occur (which is not to say they weren’t occurring already –sometimes glitches just happen!):

• Key messages need to be workshopped and refined, whether for overarching organisational messages of those specific to this situation
• Media training for company spokespeople, especially those in potentially problematic industries such as Orica, is imperative

• Counselling from senior public relations employees before, and during, situations such as that which Orica was facing are also imperative
• The spokespeople, chief executives included, need to be willing to listen to advice. Make your own judgement, sure, but we have a very good idea how to help the media whilst at the same time getting organisational perspectives across and either enhancing reputation or, at least, minimising reputation damage.

As to the local community, there are a whole range of opportunities there for engagement, if the organisation cares…But that’s for another post.

What do you think about the alleged quote from Orica’s chief executive? Am I over-dramatising its impact? Can you think of parallel situations you have been involved in or observed? If so, what was the impact on the organisation or its stakeholders?

We’re lucky these days. The internet is a university. And some of the best lecturers (practicing professionals, academics and their hybrid sisters) in the world have blogs, which is where I’ve learnt a hell of a lot about not just social media, but a range of public relations, marketing and business issues. It is incredible just how much you can learn from great blogs and, underpinning that, how generous people are to provide their insights and advice.

One of these blogs’ best characteristics is that they cut to the chase. They’re pithy. You get some theory but so do you get the cold, hard, slap-in-the-face and here-and-now of what matters and what you need to do about it.

Content is king ipso facto content marketing is NOW

Content management and its nimble sibling, content curation, are the new marketing central. In this online-centred world with its reliance on search, its appetite for quality content and its proclivity to send it viral, quality content and its intelligent leveraging is almost unspeakably important for marketing and public relations.

And, partly because of the sheer NOISE of all this online activity, this means that thought leadership, value and insightfulness – and let’s not forget HUMOUR – are more valued than ever before.

One set of content management stats = this:

• 80% of business decision makers prefer to get company information in a series of articles versus an advertisement
• 70% say content marketing makes them feel closer to the sponsoring company
• 60% say that company content helps them make better product.

So that’s two posts I’ve flagged with only one promised. But the real point I want to make is encapsulated in the issue of where does content marketing belong in the social business? Now, this is an entirely valid question but, more importantly in my view:

What business cannot afford to be social, when so much of the conversation about it will be online?

The question of where does content marketing belong, however, is articulately explored in the conversionation post linked to above. One upshot is that if you have no single person or business unit coordinating content generation and utilisation, you do so at your peril:

• Content may not appear
• It may be shoddy and reek of a lack of professionalism and care
• Different elements may contradict each other, either in a specific tactical sense or an organisational branding sense.

In any of these cases: disaster.

Being a winner at getting targeted traffic for your blog or website

A post was published recently on Problogger by marketer Eric Enge that I consider one of the most important marketing/PR posts ever written. That sounds like hyperbole, but I’m sincere.

The reason it is the most important is that it provides an easy to understand explanation of long tail keywords and how to leverage them on blogs, websites etc. it is important because:

• as we now know, the internet is the number one source of information, after word-of-mouth (in fact, it’s often another version of word-of-mouth, but let’s not go there just now…), for many, many people
• searches/Googles for the most searched for keyword terms are extremely competitive, so being strategic about how we articulate content on our sites (i.e. the application of keywords) is absolutely stone-cold imperative
• the use of long tail keywords means that we will be able to funnel the most targeted, relevant search queries to our online real estate (and please remember, identifying target audiences as opposed to those who are generally irrelevant is crucial for effective marcomms).

Eric talks about Google Adwords keyword tool as the baby to use, but Google’s Wonder Wheel is another fun and very useful tool to consider utilising as well – both free!

And if you’re a B2B marketer or PR professional, don’t think long tail is not for you. In fact, I think the incredible specificity of much of B2B marketing makes long tail even more valuable.

PR and marketing needs to identify, cultivate and harness the power of 3rd party advocates

3^rd party credibility is a fundamental strategic approach that excellent PR and marketing uses. It works well with thought leadership, in fact. This is because not all thought leadership needs to come specifically from the organisation that wants to leverage off the goodwill and brand impetus 3^rd party credibility delivers.

Using a non-organisational employee to deliver thought leadership that the organisation benefits from is a subtle form of brand advocacy. But there are other reasons why your company should use brand advocates:

• They create lots of content
• They are influencers
• They talk a lot!
• They use social media a lot
• They care about their own reputation and like to share and influence
• They are loyal to brands they love/like/respect/ have a personal ‘thing’ with…

3^rd party credibility, thought leadership and brand advocacy are not the sole property of online communication, either. They are relevant to the entire big, wide world of marketing and PR.

Are your assumptions about media relations in PR on the money?

In a recently syndicated post, public relations and communication pro Greg Matusky explored five media myths that he believes apply to many public relations and marketing professionals.

• Sometimes it’s actually okay to say ‘no comment’. The main message here being don’t interact with the media solely on their terms. Organisational imperatives are important, too
• The media can play dirty. They cannot always be trusted. Don’t take them on their word unless you have good reason to
• If you don’t ask, you don’t get. Query a journalist on their rationale for the story. It might actually help to provide them with information that suits the needs of both the journo and your organisation
• You can negotiate with the media. If you don’t try, then you’re leaving options and opportunities unexplored
• Media can sometimes surprise you by taking a perspective or running a story that logic doesn’t always tell you they will. It goes back to the section on content noted above. Have you got the content and rationale to convince?

For mine, another myth you can also add is that a PR media relations pro needs to have a network of journalists to get good media placement. Rubbish. The main element a PR pro needs for this is decent content, insights, thought leadership, POD in perspectives.

It is simply not necessary to have a journalist relationship that requires them to be a Facebook friend, to be going to each others’ kids bar mitzvahs or to have season tickets to the same sporting teams. Relationships, of course, help. But how do you think the PR pro-journalist thing became a useful relationship in the first place?

Because the journalist was consistently provided with quality content, customised to their needs with probably a little bit of ‘exclusivity’ icing on top.

Why we don’t need to measure PR

Measuring the impact of business activity, and oh yes that includes PR and marketing, is somewhat of a no-brainer for any pro that is serious about their work having an impact. How else can you tell whether your work is achieving meaningful, business-relevant outcomes?

Determining what those objectives should be is one thing, but taking an arch-eyebrowed contrary view, Sean Williams argues that sometimes, well, you don’t need to measure PR. Sean says don’t do measurement when:

• you’ve been flickpassed a dodo. No matter what you do it won’t make a difference
• your organisation isn’t going to change or do anything to meet stakeholders’ needs and wants. Clearly, stakeholders are going to crucify you. All you can do is hand them the hammer and nails and grimace politely whilst they are put to use
• the cost of measuring exceeds the cost of the program or work you are measuring. Time to take a punt on the impact. Or talk to a few of the target audience. Measurement for the price of a pint. There are worse ways to do business…

On the other hand, do measurement when:

• you care about the program’s results. Really care. You might even depend on the results for your own organisation’s or your own (i.e. Le job) existence
• you know you need to change and data is the way to convince the purse-wielding powers that be
• you want insights and information to speak confidently and persuasively on your key issue(s).

What are your thoughts on the propositions put forward by each of these five (plus) posts? What is missing from the arguments put forward? Should there be another topic included? Is there anything here which has challenged your own perceptions of what we need to prioritise and implement?

PS: I’d welcome you joining my 1,500-strong LinkedIn network (send me an invite!) or interacting with me through Twitter. You can also learn more about my PR and marcomms business through my About page.

It is marketing 101 to say that keeping a customer is cheaper than acquiring one. Ipso facto, it is cheaper to keep an employee than recruit one.

One dimension of this equation is that it is more productive for the organisation, too, as keeping employees obviates downtime lag which occurs as new employees get up to speed with their new position. Business continuity is not just optimised by retaining employees; its momentum is probably going to be enhanced.

Based on this thinking, it is arguably more important for employer branding to prioritise current employees than potential ones. The reality, of course, is that there needs to be a focus on potential candidates as well, not least because of some industry’s increasing levels of turnover due to social and demographic changes (did anyone say Gen Y?), including:

• what constitutes acceptable job tenure
• what employers should be doing to retain employees (doona days, anyone?).

It is with internal target audiences (i.e. employees) in particular where dialogue has an opportunity to profoundly engage. This truly is a captive audience. And it is an audience where public relations (in its internal communication or employer branding guise) should really be excelling.

The more that employees feel they are an intrinsic and valued component of an organisation the more loyal and productive, and hence efficient and value-delivering, they will be.

Media and social media for employer branding

Important and influential conversations and information on organisations can be found in both traditional and social media. This provides an opportunity for organisations to enhance their brand (for both external and internal audiences). One reason for this is the third party credibility of these conversations, whilst another is the momentum that increasing SEO will bring to bear on organisational branding (with its attendant, more specific, ‘employer branding’ roll-on effects).

For each organisation there are three relevant media segments that can be leveraged to gain employer brand benefits:

• Media relevant to the specific industry an organisation operates in (e.g. finance, engineering etc)
• HR/recruitment specific media, in both a vertical B2B and metro media
• Metro media that is not specifically related to HR/recruitment, but is interested in topical issues with POD.

Further to this, there is social media activity that is relevant to each organisation and very different and dependant on the organisation’s industry sector.

Another important facet is that there is a lot of both metro and vertical media that is online. An implication of this cross-fertilisation of media formats is that the SEO of specific organisations, due to conversations or articles on them, is impacted on.

 Thought leadership helping employer branding

Thought leadership is a highly strategic approach to reputation management and/or branding that can be applied across both media and social media with the specific aim of enhancing employer brand equity.

At the heart of an organisation being perceived as providing thought leadership is generating content. Generation of content occurs in three ways:

1. Interviewing the relevant leader who will ‘front’ the organisation in this program and determining what thought leadership he or she possesses, as well as his or her interests, passions, ambitions and capabilities. In many cases thought leadership content will be driven entirely by this one person. A variation on this is if there are multiple leaders who are going to be put forward as thought leadership leaders

2. Identifying ‘non-leader’ employees that can generate thought leadership content or who possess thought leadership capabilities. This content can be used in two ways:

- As ‘ghost written’ or ‘ghost generated’ content that has the leader’s name attached to it

- As content actually ‘authored’ by the employee, even though they are not being positioned as a leader as assertively as in the point 1 option

3. The communication professional researching, building and recommending content based on the interests, passions, ambitions and capabilities of the designated leader of this program that can comfortably fit into their vision and they are happy to put their name to.

An extrapolation of these approaches can be undertaking market research that provides insights in itself which can form the basis of thought leadership. Another layer, however, should be added to this wherever possible. This is the perspective that a leader will value-add to the content the research generates through analysing its implications and, if you like, adding insights to the insights. All three basic approaches noted above can be applied to this extenuation of the process.

In all of the above the communication professional adds value to the thought leadership content generation process, acting as a both a prompt and digging deeper, as well as a devil’s advocate. This entails undertaking desktop research and, potentially, speaking to other industry stakeholders to enrich the content.

Additionally, there is no reason why a multiple-pronged approach cannot be applied to thought leadership content generation.

The designated thought leader, of course, will always need to feel entirely comfortable with the content that is put forward under his or her name.

A challenge in the thought leadership content generation is making it relevant to the sponsoring organisation as well as the professional lives of the target audience (and potentially their personal lives as well). Believe me, as much as the upper echelons of organisational hierarchy like to think that their industry, their company and their thoughts make for fascinating reading, this isn’t always the case!

Whether it’s through market research or simply a solid bout of reflection and desktop research, it’s always worth having a good think about what content will actually achieve two very important goals:

• Engagement of target audiences
• Enhancement of employer brand.

For this thought leadership-driven employer branding to deliver best-possible outcomes, a communication SWOT will need to occur which, if applied in a best practice manner, includes a social media audit that includes the organisations’ competitors and their social media and traditional media activity.

How to apply employer branding at a tactical PR level

In my next post I’ll continue along the themes noted in this post. I’ll go into some tactical dimensions of how to roll out thought leadership for employer branding for both internal and external audiences.

In the meantime, why not share what experiences you have had with employer branding in the PR or marcomms space? Does PR have a role to play? Have internal audiences been focused on and, if so, how? This is a relatively young area of marketing and business communication – what do you think should be focused on? What are the strategic keys to the palace?

PS: I’d welcome you joining my 1,400-strong LinkedIn network (send me an invite!) or interacting with me through Twitter.

[This is a guest post by Jane Jordan-Meier, whose book on crisis media management, The Four Highly Effective Stages of Crisis Management: How to Manage the Media in the Digital Age, has just been released.]

Choosing a spokesperson in a crisis is very perplexing for many organizations. Many assume that it must be the top dog, the CEO, the managing director or the chairman. Not always so. When a CEO takes ownership of a crisis and is the vehicle for the response the reputation stakes, do not forget, rise dramatically – just ask BP!

The bottom line?

• Is the CEO capable of connecting with stakeholders in a compelling, compassionate manner?

It is a matter of credibility. As Martin Newman said in his report, ‘Shaken not Stirred’, for The Company Agency (London, 2008), “People are much quicker at spotting inconsistencies when times are tough. CEOs should never underestimate that every twitch of their facial expression is interpreted. When people are looking at leaders, they are constantly trying to interpret them in ways that are often subliminal.”

Leaders in crisis communication

Contrast Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and Prime Minister Julia Gillard during the recent devastating floods – both leaders, but clearly one a more effective spokesperson than the other. Gillard made the right moves – being in all the right places, but was often off-key, wooden. Bligh hit the right tone, resonated more with her constituents.

Just as U.S. President Barack Obama spoke in detail about the shooting victims with the right emotional tone at the memorial service of the January 2010 tragedy in Tucson Arizona, so did Anna Bligh. As Anne Davies wrote in the Fairfax Media outlets, “At press conferences, Bligh seems to know every tiny town in every valley, aware of who will face the next threat and how high the rivers will rise … she has struck the right note of grim determination, tinged with emotion.”

Disasters are defining moments. The biggest test of a company’s indeed a country’s values. Rudy Giuliani became a household hero as New York mayor on September 11, 2001. President George Bush’s slide began when he took three days to properly respond to hurricane Katrina.

Leaders in crisis communication scenarios

It would be unthinkable that the Prime Minister or CEO wouldn’t speak nor be present when an event as devastating as the Queensland floods takes place, or there are serious questions about national security, or the safety of employees and consumers – think Alan Joyce, CEO, Qantas during the recent Airbus troubles. Notably Rolls Royce, the makers of the engine that blew apart on a Qantas A380 Airbus said very little.

Leaders’ involvement in a crisis can send many, many messages and some intended, some not. Often, their presence conveys that the situation is serious enough to impact the company’s future. In some cases, the CEO can fuel the bushfire rather than dampen the flames. Again think of Tony Hayward’s performance during the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Questions when determining crisis communication spokespeople

Rushing your CEO to the front lines is easy. They indeed may the most articulate voice. But my advice is to think very carefully about the issues at hand and their long-term implications before putting the CEO out front.

As a basic rule, go for the person that is most credible, most believable, most authentic and has the genuine interest of the affected community/consumers/constituents at heart.

Will they pass the grace under fire question? Are they believable in that first nanosecond – yes that is all you have today to prove your credibility.

Research shows that it takes just a staggering 115 milliseconds for us to make a judgment based on body language. “Phony expressions usually do not fool us,” says Professor Beatrice de Gelder, a cognitive neuroscientist at Tilburg University in the Netherlands and Harvard Medical School.

Generally, the best spokesperson is local, accountable and likeable. As veteran Australian speechwriter, Don Watson, said of Anna Bligh, ”She’s a little less modern and a little more Churchillian, and people respond to that.” State premier versus (national) Prime Minister.

They also need enough authority to back up their words with actions. And actions speak louder than words – always, but particularly in a crisis.

Organisations in crisis: a PR challenge

But, if your crisis is truly a show-stopping event and the company’s reputation is clearly on the line (e.g., there have been multiple deaths, the scale of the crisis is huge – think Exxon Valdez, 9/11, the Qantas Airbus jet explosions and the monumental Gulf of Mexico BP oil spill ), then it’s imperative that the head of the organisation is at the scene, getting their hands dirty. They may know less, but their physical presence sends two powerful messages: “I care and I am accountable.”

So you decide you need the CEO there; the scale and the potential damage to reputation are just too big. Then make sure that they are very well trained and drilled. It should be obvious, but please never ever let the CEO out without serious, professional and regular training and coaching.

At media conferences:

• Back up with the CEO with relevant operational mangers who can supply the more concrete details of the crisis – the boat captains, the engineers, the factory supervisor
• The CEO is there to say they’re accountable, they take responsibility to make sure that everything will be done to fix the problem and, above, all to provide empathy and demonstrate genuine concern
• It is the role of the front-line management to provide the finer details of the recovery and response.

CEOs are important but not sufficient voices for their companies, as engagement is created by mid-level employees with serious knowledge of products and less perceived bias to exaggeration.

So test, test and test your spokespeople. Train like your very life depended on it. Scenario-based crisis training is critical. It will bring bad elements to light. Cross-train for multiple roles so that you have maximum flexibility in a crisis and, more importantly, a deeper coverage of responsibilities.

So no need to jump the gun and bring in the top dog immediately. If you play the trump card immediately where are you going next?

Principal of Jane Jordan & Associates, a boutique training, coaching and advisory firm, Jane Jordan is a communication and media coach with more than two decades of experience in working with executive management in both the government and the private sectors. Most of Jane’s work today is in crisis management training with senior and executive management. Jane has taught at Masters level at UTS and undergraduate communication and PR courses at Charles Sturt as well as numerous PRIA workshops and conferences. Jane can be networked with through her LinkedIn profile and on Twitter @janejordanmeier.  

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

NB. This article is copyright 2011 to Jane Jordan-Meier and is based on research from her book, ‘The Four Highly Effective Stages of Crisis Management: How to manage the media in the digital age’, 14 January, 2011.

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.

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!

­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?

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?

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 in media 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?

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