Category: General

First up some interesting content if you’re in the mood for a read…

 For anyone dealing with industry analysts Tekrati is a fantastic resource. They’ve just published the first part of a report on The State of Analyst Weblogs – currently only 10% of the 350 analyst firms they track have well established blogs.

 Alice Marshall provided a link to Lois Armbash’s blog Metaforix. She has some excellent notes and thoughts from the Forum last week as well as a range of other interesting posts.

 Greg Brooks points out an interesting article on positioning over at Don Crowther’s 101 Public Relations which uses airlines to provide real-world examples.

 Last, but by no means least, a blog that has already been widely covered but one which I only got around to reading today.  Margot Wallstrom is Commissioner for Institutional Relations and Communication at the European Commission.  In effect, she’s responsible for ensuring that the Commission improves its communication with over 450 million Europeans – and as one of them, I can confirm that is a major challenge. Her blog is a breath of fresh air, amidst the usual humdrum of European local and regional bureaucrats. The fact that she’s prepared to provide a human side to her work, bodes well for us all.

Onto other news…

  I hadn’t spotted this previously, but it appears that the Portland Development Commission’s investment arm is in deep water over a leaked PR memo.

“Its suggestions aren�t always subtle. As a response to the possible criticism that the PFF-funded Armory project in the Pearl District is over budget and out of control, the memo says, �Change the subject and create messages about the leading-edge energy systems.�

  My mother always taught me that what goes around comes around.  It’s a lesson I learned early and have enjoyed watching it happen again and again and again in my personal and professional life.  Max Clifford, the leading UK publiscist, who masterminds a disprorportionate number of tabloid sleaze episodes will have to pay �100,000 compensation to some of his previous victims. I’m sure for Max the sum of �100,000 is a pittance, but it’s the principle that made me smile.

I think by now that the whole Ketchum episode has been suitably covered here and elsewhere.  I’ve no interest in going back over the various machinations of the affair, if you’re interested, a quick search in Google will provide all you need to read.

However, Andy Lark pointed to a very interesting op-ed from Alan Kelly (nee Applied Communications).

He makes the sensible point that the core issue here is not the medium or PR’s role in it but disclosure. 

“What we have in the case of DoE-Ketchum-Williams is not the impropriety of influencing public discourse. What we have are three parties that failed to disclose their roles in their attempts to influence that public discourse � grey propaganda, to be precise… Many professionals, academics and associations idealize PR as a management function for building trust and reputations. But trust and reputation exist in marketplaces and, as such, they must be defended and asserted in the context of competing forces. That mere fact requires PR professionals to operate as advocates, not simply ministers of goodwill and good ethics. This is not to release our fated trio from blame. Fairness in the process of advocacy is paramount. But hedging on disclosure is what has taken us out of bounds, not � dare I write it � disseminating propaganda.”

It’s worth a read…

There was some very interesting feedback both in comments and e-mail to my post on addressing PR’s perception problems. I thought the comments (and some other recent postings elsewhere) justified a second post.

A common theme was that while the good repuation of the majority is sullied by the acts of a select few, the profession’s inherent resistance to change is also hurting the business as a whole:

Dave Taylor wrote:

“As with any profession, I suggest that it’s important to differentiate between The Profession itself, and the people who are in the profession. For example, I don’t think that either the legal profession or even car salesmen are inherently bad or slimy, but I certainly have come across individuals who I wouldn’t trust with an old rock, let alone my personal business. Further, I think that public relations is changing because of the Web, and while there are some folk who are denying this, the reality is that the Web has changed everything, particularly communication, both private and public. Companies that aren’t starting to think about how the Web and weblogs have changed the reality of their business and how they interact with their customers are going to find themselves irrelevant and obsolete.”

John Brissenden is in agreement with Dave:

“For all the ignorance surrounding PR there is no question that practitioners and clients have done themselves no favours. Too much of the industry is backward-looking, closed to new ideas, in denial when it comes to the ethical contradictions of PR, and regards serious academic – critical – study of PR as having nothing to offer practitioners. I think that can change, and I’d be interested to hear from practitioners with their views.”

I’d agree with much of the sentiment in these comments. We as a profession don’t do enough to both dispel the myths and address obvious cases of malpractice – and the professional bodies and associations are rarely to the the front on our behalf.

Peter West makes an interesting point, that while there is an innocent majority, we shouldn’t forget that there remains an institutional minority whose focus is on the “dark arts” – the very activities that have created the anti-PR environment within which we operate today:

“Good PR people help journalists by bringing to their attention stories and facts that might never come to the public’s attention. PR makes for an excellent home-based business and there are thousands of small PR agencies that work diligently to help their clients get the publicity they deserve. Now as a former vp of a national public relations company, I can confirm there is a dark side to PR. It is extremely well funded and motivated to put the “proper” spin on their clients’ reputations. This situation has always existed and likely always will. The good news is these well-dressed flacks are no match to one solitary journalist in search of the truth. The challenge is to find one well-trained, motivated investigative journalist. They are hard to find in these days of instant news coverage.”

 

So how do we address these issues?

Elizabeth Albrycht has some suggestions:

“But, attention aside, how do we go about this shifting of perception? I don’t think we can do it through the traditional command/control style marketing/advertising/PR techniques that the vast majority of our profession are still completely tied to.  Creating a committee or another ethics document is not the answer. Participatory communications just might be.  Engaging in the conversations that are occuring around the blogosphere, for example,  as identifiable PR people.”

I have tried and failed on many occasions to engage with people online who have trotted out the usual uninformed sterotypes about PR. In the majority of cases their response is “you would say that” or “you’re trying to spin us”.  In all cases they have been unable to provide me with any hard facts or personal experiences that have driven their beliefs.  Rather, it’s mostly been a case of rash generalizations.

But I think Elizabeth (and check out her post for a lot of very interesting comments on this topic) makes a valid point.  One of the major reasons behind this perception problem is the yawning vacuum.  PR people rarely engage with detractors, there is no culture of calling out poor practice.

The more PR people publicly address these misconceptions, address shoddy work practices and highlight unethical behavior, the greater the chance that the discussion will at least move beyond these traditional stereotypes.

I don’t expect this situation to change in the near or medium term.  This is a long term project.  But the more practitioners stand up and meet issues head on, the faster we can at least expect a balanced discussion.  Don’t rely on your professional body, get out and do it yourself.

 Neville Hobson and Shel Holtz have released their fifth weekly PR podcast.  This week’s installment covers the New Communications Forum and GM’s FastLane blog amongst other items.  They also recently released two interviews from the New Communications Forum with Jeremy Wright and Fergus Burns. Loads of PR related listening there.

 Bacon’s have released the latest issue of their Expert PR newsletter.

 The Knowledge Capital Group have built a very successful business focussing on helping vendors to work more effectively with industry analysts.  Their latest newsletter tackles the Gartner-META merger and they have some sensible advice for companies working with recently married couple:

 Speaking of industry analysts, Forrester deserves a lot of credit for their approach to client relations. 

Unlike many of their peers, who often treat vendors’ analyst relations people like something they have found at the bottom of their show following a walk in some long grass, Forrester have put together an “Analyst Relations and Marketing Council”. 

The council provides (amongst other things) PR and analyst relations staff in client firms, with an opportunity to meet each other (online and in-person) to discuss relevant issues.  The most recent call covered dealing with negative analyst reports.  It was an excellent Webex session with contributions from a wide array of professionals on their personal experiences, issues and potential resolutions of analyst-related problems. It was an excellent session. 

Kudos to Forrester – I realise it’s a sales tool for them, but it doesn’t negate its value.

 Amy Bellinger was in touch.  She describes herself as a former Public Relations practitioner, who now has a blog that deals with effective online communication customer care professionals… sounds like PR to me!

Reichert Communications a high-tech PR agency has kicked off a new blog entitled Vitamin T.

With the New Communications Forum taking place last week it�s no surprise that there�s a lot of content from the event and a lot of excellent insights into the challenges and opportunities facing PR � check out the links below…

 However, before I get to that, aren�t the reports of the US government�s spending on PR most interesting?  The fact that Ketchum has received over $95m is hard to believe!  No wonder there are doing VNR�s – I�m surprised they haven�t launched their own TV channel with revenues like that coming in the door. Other agencies should find out who does their business development�

More related comments from:

• Marc Snyder
• Ben Silverman
• Kevin Dugan

 So, onto New Communication Forum�. The show was a great success by all accounts and brought together a lot of knowledge on how communications and blogging will develop and impact Public Relations and journalism.  Here are just a few links to content from the event: 

• Elizabeth Albrycht, one of the masterminds behind the New Communications Forum has logged notes from the event.
• Andy Lark offers some of his thoughts on the event and provides a copy of his key note presentation [PDF] which looks very interesting. Matthew Podboy writes up Andy�s keynote.
• Alice Marshall shares notes from her session on pitching bloggers�
• Jeremey Pepper shares his (preliminary) thoughts.
• Tom Foremski gets carried away with the hype� 
• Neville Hobson was the most prolific poster on the event.  Here he shares some reflections on the event, notes on the first day�s events. Neville has interviews from the event with Jeremy Wright and Fergus Burns of Nooked. He also has reports on the Blogging and Journalism Panel, and the blogging and branding session. Busy man!

 Jim Horton links to the Lex Files memo that gives recommendations on how the media can intersect with blogs 

 Trevor Cook has a review of the new book Tailspin – PR disasters.

 Robb Hecht points to a new book from Linda VandeVrede entitled �Press Releases Are Not a PR Strategy�.

As you are probably aware Public Relations is a euphemism.

Whenever someone is caught doing something underhand, whenever a diaster strikes, whenever someone’s ethics are called into question you can bet that the two little letters that will appear in the reportage and/or the discussion are P & R.

PR’s image problems are no secret.  The profession is hounded by the dual problems of ignorance and a small number of high profile “practitioners” who bring the profession into disrepute through their behavior and their practice.

For the unwashed masses it doesn’t matter that the vast majority of PR people (many of whom have nothing to do with the media) are hard working, stressed individuals who try their best to communicate honestly on behalf of individuals, groups or organizations in an ethical manner.

Nope.  Once those two little words pop out, a whole pandora’s box of preconceptions flood into the minds of the uninitiated.

If you want a graphic illustration of this, just read the comments posted to Jay Rosens much maligned recent post. ‘Cover up’, ‘spin’, ‘they’re all the same covering each other’s backs’ etc. etc. etc.

Oh please.

For too long I believe that PR people have let this perception problem slide.  It’s up to individuals and industry organizations to address these misconceptions.

Shel Israel, who no longer practices PR, has a great posting on this very subject.

“I was in PR for more than 20 years, and am proud of the work I did. The majority of people I knew and worked with were good and honest people who, if anything, were guilty of trying too hard to please both clients and the media. PR people generally counsel clients to come clean on controversial news.  Get bad news out and get on with it. Tell the public your sorry, when you’ve done wrong and make sure you repeat the mistake again. Cover ups never last–so come clean up front. Yep, we had our shady characters and over a beer and in private I’ll share a few stories with some of you. Every industry has liars. Every industry industry has people who open their mouths and display ignorance.”

I have been working in PR since 1991.  It’s an exciting, rewarding career that requires hard work and dedication, but it’s worth it.

Let’s put a line in the sand and from this point on address the ignorance and the prejudice.  If there is justifiable cause for concern at the practice of our peers then let’s highlight it and criticize it, but let’s stop letting the unjustified criticisms float by.  

We are not doing ourselves any favors.