Leadership & New Media & The Social Web Melvin Yuan on 15 Apr 2007 12:36 am
Messages are worthless without meaningful action
Businesses should always commit to meaningful action above all things, but many corporations pussyfoot around serious issues in the hope that PR (misunderstood as spin-making) can create a buffer between reality and appearance.
Unfortunately, it is easy for PR professionals to accede to this agenda under various pressures from clients and upper-management. And we have ourselves to blame if we are not taken seriously in the boardroom.
To advance my previous argument for PR’s place in the C-suite, one reason why we’re not there yet, is this: When PR professionals successfully mask the truth to get a positive story where a negative one could have resulted, we get applauded for solving the problem. The recognition may feel good in the short term. But in the long run, the profession takes a beating because we don’t get respected for helping to steer the company in the right direction.
I came across a succinct summary by Michael Tangeman on the need to help companies face up to the truth and take the right action; and it’s worth quoting here:
“The best advice any public relations firm that premises its work on truth can give a client is that if you’ve got a problem, fix it – ‘fess up, tell what you’ve done to correct the problem and move on to the many positive things you are doing… …Trying to help a company mask its problems with other initiatives or justifying a p.r. approach with utterances that clearly don’t connect with the reality of a client’s situation is a true disservice.”
And might I add - it’s a true disservice to both our clients and the profession.
on 15 Apr 2007 at 1:44 am 1.Wilson said …
Agreed. Additionally, to be effective advocates for meaningful action, communicators have to stretch ourselves to operate beyond the comfort zone of prose to learn the basics of business acumen–P&L, balance sheets, PE ratio etc.
on 15 Apr 2007 at 9:55 pm 2.Michael Tangeman @ Media Mindshare said …
Agree with your post, Melvin, that short-term ‘feel good’ results are no substitute for long-term benefits to the client of good, positive public relations.
on 18 Apr 2007 at 8:10 pm 3.John Rowlands said …
Such a reality seems to be one of many norms of practice that work, essentially, to the detriment of PR as a profession.
The expert diagnosis of a problem/issue in the vast majority of other professions is largely objective. The client is told about, firstly, the situation up front (no matter how bad), the variety, if any, of remedies possible, and the consequences of not taking any action. In essence, the truth.
This is frequently not so in PR practice, where there continues to be a culture of pandering to the client - a result of the feeling of a lack of power and professional legitimacy (rarely vocalised, of course) felt my many PR practitioners and consultancies, exacerbated by the pressures of competition which make PR’s desperate to please who’s paying the bills.
A Communications professor once told me that when you read in the media about a large piece of commissioned research, before looking at the results and what it ‘tells us’, find out who comissioned it, because you will regularly see notable correlations of ‘interest’. It is cheerleading research. Is this something similar?
on 18 Apr 2007 at 11:30 pm 4.John Bell said …
Agree with your post. Too often PR pros don’t rise to the role of “trusted advisor” as defined by David Maister. We need to have a clear, well thought-out pov and advise our clients on behavior, products, policy and communications.
What’s the risk? A PR pro may lose some business and earn a reputation for having something more to say than “I’ll figure out a positive way to portray the story…”
Good risk to take.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 1:32 pm 5.Melvin Yuan said …
Thank you all for the additional insights.
John (Rowlands),
I’m not sure what you meant exactly, when you asked “Is this something similar?â€, so I don’t have an answer to that question now.
You spoke of public skepticism over hidden agendas that sometimes exist behind ‘PR tactics’ (such as commissioned research). This is evidence of an increasingly discerning public.
And thank you for bringing up the word ‘cheerleader’. Because that is exactly what many PR professionals consider their role to be – cheerleading. They wave their pom-poms and sing praises of their companies/clients, regardless of performance. Still on that analogy - in today’s transparent business landscape, the ‘team’ performance is even more visible from the grandstand; and cheerleaders (misguided PR folks) will only look silly (to both the team and the spectators) if they go on cheering after a disgraceful play.
PR needs to shake off the role of a ‘paid cheerleader’, and take its place on the coach’s bench… helping the CEO to steer the company as I’ve described above.
John (Bell),
It is a “good risk to take” indeed.
I believe that we (along with Wilson and Michael) envision a day when PR is recognised for what it truly is - a profession that is governed by, and recognised for, integrity; and one that holds businesses to the same standards of sincerity, transparency and accountability.
The very nature of the ‘Social Web’ will be one of many catalysts for this to happen; but as we are getting there, I’m thankful for like-minded friends such as yourself, that make the ‘risks’ ahead feel more like a brave endeavour, rather than a reckless gamble.
on 19 Apr 2007 at 9:05 pm 6.Walter said …
Well, as a client of one of the world’s largest PR firms, I must confess that I have been guilty of getting my consultants to become “spinmeisters” as opposed to “communication strategists”. Most of the time, their areas of expertise tend to be in media relations and less in the other more complex fields of stakeholder communications. This is understandable as it takes a lot of time and insider knowledge sometimes to understand the complexities and nuances of communications, especially internal ones to key stakeholders like employees, board members and others.
on 20 Apr 2007 at 1:46 am 7.Melvin Yuan said …
Hi Walter,
Thanks for joining in the conversation here.
I’ve focused on why PR agencies/consultants must be proactive in creating and proving value in providing strategic counsel to their clients; and you’ve rightfully emphasised the other side of the story - the Client perspective.
As you’ve shown, clients - both the general management and ‘in-house’ communications managers - have a crucial role to play in enabling their agencies to bring greater value to the table.
Here are some suggestions for those in ‘client-side’ roles:
All,
I hope to put the above points in a separate post - to provide guidance for client-side communications managers on how to get the most out of an agency relationship. But I’m sure I’m missing some points here - such as managing the balance between strategic work and day-to-day KPIs, internal pressures and expectations etc. Would love to have your inputs on this topic.
Walter, I would especially love to hear from you because of your present client-side role.
on 21 Apr 2007 at 1:01 am 8.Walter said …
Thanks Melvin.
I guess anybody who is in the PR business long enough will know that it isn’t just about reputation, public perception and brand positioning. More often than not, the head honchos expect PR to help generate positive media mileage - read column inches, primetime news and cover stories - in order to improve sales and customer traffic.
There is something less tangible about reputation vis-a-vis revenue. This is why amongst the professions in the entire spectrum of marketing - sales, market research, marketing communications, advertising, and public relations - it is the sales guys which get the fattest paychecks and best career prospects. PR professionals are sometimes treated as “channels” rather than “communicators”.
Happily though, I see that this will change. The growing charge of CSR makes it imperative that companies better manage their public perceptions and the advent of blogging and social media makes it even more so. From a client perspective, I would say that my job is to advise my CEO to position himself and the organisation as credible, sincere and respected amongst all our stakeholders. I would definitely welcome any services by PR agencies that can help me meet that challenge.
on 21 Apr 2007 at 9:43 am 9.Daniel said …
Hi Walter,
I agree with you there about client expectations.
Most clients we speak to are only interested to “get publicity so I can sell more of my [products/services]”. Asian companies, especially, far too more concerned about the here-and-now, bread-and-butter issues as opposed to creating and reinforcing their brand and image for the long run.
I totally agree with John (Rowlands)’s observation of “a culture of pandering to the client”, that PR practitioners are guilty of giving in to such myopic needs in pursuit of the client dollar.
When I showed this thread to someone, her answer was “So idealistic!”. And then she pointed out the (sad)facts: that consultants are still consistently shut out of C-level discussions, bosses are still too busy to hear us, and frankly many middle managers are more interested in preserving their jobs and so demand “happy reports” instead.
While it’s true that things are slowly beginning to mature - my question is: how can we effect and accelerate such change?
Would love to hear some thoughts.
on 03 May 2007 at 4:50 am 10.Nguyen Thu An Ha said …
Hi Mel,
The truth, for PR, according to the ethics debate in PR Week March 2nd, 2007 issue was fascinating. Consultants and experienced practitioners ADMITTED that ‘Truth is a relative thing’ although it’s out duty to tell the truth, it seemed that at times practitioners forget or ‘unaware of their power and responsibility’. Max Clifford even ADMIITED that he has been telling lies on behalf of his clients. So yes there is a pressure and the ethical dilemma pracititioners face. Meaningful actions can have various ‘versions’. On the note of CSR matter, also in PR Week back in Feb 23, at least for the UK, there’s new Companies Act whereby the focus and demand on CSR reporting even more serious. So there’s many problematic areas of practice that need to be tackled.
To make a different, change as Danied asked, i think practitioner(s) firstly need to be in postition to make changes like a management level or has to have support from management. Although everyone is different. Change is difficult to manage and implement. Perhaps hoping to make the practice world a better place is a bit ambitious…although Im trying to make it happen. Let it be, i think would be a better thing to do. People have rights to make decisions, if they choose to lie, or do practice in a certain way, there will be consequences.
Just a thought….for now