Richard,

Yout should take a look at Prof. Jeffery Sachs' recent book "The End of Poverty" and the work of the Earth Institute he heads up at Columbia (http://www.earth.columbia.edu). He specifically talks about the importance of female eduction in the developing world and adds to your list of reasons that educating woman (and more generally helping children survive childhood) leads to lower fertility rates and reduction of population growth from rates that are currently doubling populations in very short periods to more sustainable levels.

He also adds to the importance of School Lunches by way of a story he tells of one school, I think in Kenya, where prior to instituting school lunches they were ranked ~110th out of 200 schools in the region. After just adding school lunches for the 8th grade they raised their school ranking (on the basis of national tests) to 2nd in the region. Prof. Sachs is working with NGO's to extend the school lunch program there to all grades.

Thomas P. M. Barnett in his books and writings also emphasizes the critical importance of woman's education on closing the gap between countries. Countries where girls get an education and woman have rights and opportunities tend to move forward in many other areas (environment, development, stability).

Shannon

Shannon,

I really want our corporate clients opening factories in these developing nations to get involved and to put money into girls education. Seems to create a virtuous circle. Thanks for writing

It's ironic that the focus still remains so largely on issues overseas when it's important to note that women and girls are also lacking opportunities for education right here in North America. While we speak highly of the freedom and opportunity available to us (women) on these 'gold paved' streets we tend to lack focus on the quality of education provided to those girls of lesser means and the opportunities avalailable to those same women to pursue higher education over their brothers, cousins and male peers.

In Rio de Janeiro, where I.m now a Councilwoman for the City, adolescents in favelas have seven children for each two born in formal areas of the city.
This means dropout of schools, having a second and third children following the first, each one from a different father, no job at all nor nursery center. Usually these fathers are dead , in prison, or in drug traffic.
Giving these girls a perspective of future, a different role ,other than being a mother, is the only way to prevent the continuation of this tragedy that means more violence, less education and a lack of public funds to overcome the situation.
If anybody knows of a company that is willing to do something close to what Richard proposed, I will, as a legislative taking care of this issue, be a partner.

andrea vieira

Richard,

Hello,

Regarding No. 4, If we take under consideration the ideal situation where the economic leadership especially in the big corporations, should be involve in the society and lead with the local government, I would suggest that basically we can offer clients a full program who will include: mentoring, private classes, tutoring and more in this area.

Joshua Goldring
GPS

Dear Richard,
Why not connect with UNESCO, The World Bank, Save the Children, and a multitude of other International agencies and encouage public/private partnerships in this effort? The combined efforts and effects of public and private investment are synergystic. Thank you so much for your lofy visions for and commitment to our world.
Kind regards,
Nancy Randall

Nancy,
Good idea on tie ups with other NGOs. In fact this gives corporate sector additional credibility in local markets. As NGOs are in fact the most trusted sector ahead of government business and media

Richard

Cara,

I think you are right to say that we need serious focus on education in N America, especially for younger women. There are interesting efforts to tie private sector into education--as an example, Teach for America, which offers one or two year scholarships for outstanding college graduates who teach in inner city schools. Another is PENCIL, which allows a top executive to be principal for a day in return for continued relationship with a NYC school.

Richard

Andrea,
I think you should come forward with a couple of specific opportunities that can be offered to companies. For instance, is there an NGO in Brazil that offers girls a chance at primary education? How much is minimum scholarship per student or per class?

Richard

Joshua,

We do need serious commitment by private sector to this concept of involvement in society. I have seen a few companies do it well. Example would be HSBC where chairman John Bond has insisted that his people give back--and the company makes it easy to do it. Arranges links to civil society, trips to 3rd world for employees, money for local charities tied to employees'participation levels.

Richard

Richard,
Girls education is very powerful. I work for a small NGO with a small for impoverished girls in Salvador, Brazil. Bahia Street was created by local citizens to break cycles of poverty for impoverished girls and young woman, and 11 years into it, we now have 3 girls in university. Contrary to Jeffrey Sachs' model, we believe in William Easterly's notion that small local organizations are the most nimble and able to respond to local conditions. I invite anyone interested in read my colleague's book about living in Salvador's shantytowns and creating Bahia Street: Dance Lest We All Fall Down by Margaret Willson.

Richard,
Thanks for the insights on emerging trends throughout the world. As an avid reader of the blog, I find the information both interesting and valuable. I'm at the beginning of my career and enjoy reading your thoughts on the industry. Thanks again!

Rebecca,

Thanks for your note
Glad you are a regular reader!

Dear Mr. Edelman,

It is interesting to hear your views on Nationalism and CSR in Asia.

As a recent Boston University graduate majoring in PR, I was excited to come to Beijing, and with luck, follow my passion for CSR; however, I am sad to say that, from my experience, CSR holds little place in China's business sector.

I have found that the general view of Public Relations in China is very different from that in the States.

I truly hope that with the upcoming Olympics, Chinese corporations will learn the importance of CSR and PR.

I enjoy and appreciate your posts~

Richard,

I always enjoying reading your thoughts, and as a fairly new employee to Edelman, I appreciate your insight & the time you take to bring us up to speed on what is going on around the world.

I was curious if you thought the emergence of CSR in Asia was due to companies "following" trends in the market & doing so because it seems to improve their reputation or because they truly understand how it can benefit their bottom line.

Thank you & I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Also, Congratulations to your daughter- what an exciting time!

Katy,

Emergence of CSR in Asia is partly a function of increased expectation of companies. Now that Asia is growing quickly again, there is real concern about environment and access to drinking water. China is really focused on improving air quality in Beijing prior to 08 Olympics. Companies must play a part in resolving these issues

Richard

Cecilia,

Be patient with PR in China. It is coming along, perhaps behind the development of industry, but that is what happened in the US. CSR will have a real role in China.

Richard

Hi Richard,
I am Chinese from NorthEast China. People there do not really reject Japanese brands/products.

I think Japanese products are popular for many reasons, price, quality, good design and etc.(I am in 4A advertising agency but pardon me for speaking up with no figures.)

Please believe Chinese consumers like to accept any good brands. Yes.

JohnsonZC,

Very interesting comment. Perhaps the issue is more profound in the cities along the coast or in the capital. I learn continuously from comments to my blog. Keep reading it!

Richard

Asia may be rising, but its PR savvy is struggling to follow suit.

Unless Haier's PR and communications surrounding its attempted acquisition of Maytag improve dramatically - and quickly - China's business community will get a collective lesson on the value and importance of communications, particularly in a market with a free press. I was interviewed today by two news outlets here in the US - it's clear to me that a series of missteps and poor communication are not serving Haier well. If I were a leader of the union that represents workers in Maytag's plants, I'd be leaning heavily on Sen. Tom Harkin to oppose this sale.

Lenovo's acquisition of IBM's PC business was not important news in the US. Haier's attempt to purchase a brand as iconic as Maytag, and in America's heartland, however, could become big news. Haier could still use this as an opportunity to increase its name and brand recognition in the US; something that would be a strong positive should the rumored offering on Wall Street come to pass.

At this point, however, the company is poised to become a "case study" in how NOT to purchase US companies.

Josef,

You make a very interesting observation. In fact, this exactly parallels our own experience with major Chinese companies, which use PR firms only for crisis and only for short term fencing with media. There is not yet an embrace of PR as basis for building relationships with reporters and opinion leadaers. Let's see how Haier plays this now.

Richard

Richard, in your May 25,2005 post you mention visiting several manufacturing companies, inclucing Nomura. Can you tell me more about that company? What do they make, location, size, etc.

Michael,
Nomura is largest investment bank in Japan They have real interest in corporate social responsibility In fact Edelman Tokyo has just done a project with the firm Please contact Bob Pickard for more information

Richard, great to see this blog as I was there at the meeting with Mr. Oh with you. That meeting made me think what changes would be needed in PR to match the changes of journalism, as it becomes "conversation" as Dan Gilmore said. Traditionally, we emphasized the need and importance of two way communication, but, the PR industry didn't take enough actions in this regard. This is the time for "dialogue/conversation imperative" for PR to build trust and relationship, and catalyst concept is a core one for this imperative.

People who are willing to spend free-time writing, with no compensation, are also likely to be what you call 'hubs'. Social hubs are the people in society that are the purveyors of information in their local community.

They're your neighbor who likes to talk about, and give their opinion on, the latest events in politics, entertainment, and the economy.

They are considered the most influential people around - more influential than even your local broadcasters. Even though their reach is limited, their credibility is extremely high among their audience.

And then compare this to the NY Times' decision last to lock their most opinionated, "voice-y" writers -- their op-ed folks -- behind the pay wall. Talk about withdrawing from the conversation!

Hoh
This was the most interesting meeting I had in Asia The concept of citizen journalism shows the emergence of an entirely new system Korea is really the center of this development All the best
Richard

Aaron,

These catalysts are exactly the people we need to reach They are the new force in communications Note today's piece in NY Times indicating that bloggers are most powerful when there is a "totem" or some other symbol that creates a focus Like the PT boat in Kerry bashing campaign Thanks for writing
Richard

Hi David
Am back from Asia check out this AM's blog on trip NY Times caught half way across the fence uncomfortable at best
The WS Journal charges for content on line smart or not it is a policy
The NYTimes is driving more of its customers to on line but not getting paid for it enough to drive stock price I think the Times will follow the Journal to a more paid on line model gradual migration We will see

Richard

Quick note on OhMyMews. It is very easy to sign up and become a citizen journalist. I did it quickly and now I am working on my first story.

On another note. When you start a blog like this one and you publicly offer your views you leave yourself open to opposing views. You need to be able to defend your perspective. PR Watch takes a swipe at the ideas that Richard proffers in this blog. I felt a need to respond. You can see the give and take at http://www.prwatch.org/node/3666

Dear Mr. Edelman,
Francois Taschereau in Montreal sent me this item on ohmynews while I am travelling in China. You are saying that there is a need to recognize the increasingly dispersed nature of media. It'is fascinating to note here how the internet has become a more and more organized way for people in different regions and communities to voice their grievances or their ideals. Appartments buyers who stand together against a fraudulent promoter, citizens who denounce corruption of local authorities, environment councious citizens who regroup to voice their concerns. The phenomenon is so wide spread and active that the government is unable to keep track of it and to stop it. Citizen reporters acting on their own initiative. Democracy in action.
I was happy to meet you in Montreal,
JF Lepine
CBC-TV
Special Reports and Documentaries
Montreal

JF,

Sorry to be so long in responding
Great to meet you as well in montreal
As for citizen journalism
Note events of the day at Morgan Stanley Edelman worked for the Gang of Eight that provoked this event Take care

Richard

Richard,

To your blog point abt citizens being journos - the second point the police comissioner made here in london at his press conf yday afternoon was to direct public to send cell phone pics and video to a specific police website. So if the public become the investigators the least they can be is brand inventors. It's a step to authority.

Christina

Christina,

I love this idea. Citizen Journalists as part of MI5. James Bond come to life.

Richard

richard,

thanks for your information and inspiration accordian asian affairs. very helpful.

birgitt

Is there also another important difference between Obesity and SARS - namely the immediacy of the negative impact - i.e. SARS = you get, your family gets sick and people can die, in just a few weeks.

vs.

Obesity = over time you gain a pound here and pound there until years later you realize you have a problem and it is lurching slowly into the realm of serious problems - probably alongside your family who likely have gained weight with you as well.

My point, that obesity like global warming, are issues of long duration. People generally in the abstract sense they may be problems but they do not have an immediate and rapid feedback loop.

In contrast floods, Tsunami's, earthquakes, SARS etc are rapidfire, immediate, and relatively easily understood. Good or bad people will react to immediate problems (often by overreacting but clear, calm, specific and trustworthy communications will help, along with specific tangible steps people can take - such as a voluntary quarantine etc.

The challenge I see, admittedly as a non-PR professional, is how we as a society communicate around longterm, complex, hard to render as soundbites stories - global warming, obesity, social security and entitlement funding over 50 year windows, where to allocate long term, basic science research - etc.

It could also be similar to the challenge a corporation has in communicating steps taken for long term success, which may have short term negative impacts (shifting reinvestment, selling off historically important divisions such as IBM's recent sale of their PC business, etc). Clearly if you look at the financial markets IBM is still not fully recovered from some negative impacts of that sale and other related announcements.

Good topic to consider and think about.

Shannon

Richard,

As a PR practitioner who is a bit on the heavy side I must admit that every time I've heard you talk about the obesity topic I've secretly hoped that somehow you would be proven wrong. And when that report came out I thought of you and smiled. But while I found it amusing I did not make a trip to the donut shop. Instead I remembered one of the core principles of journalism - dog bites man is not news, man bites dog is news. An overweight person actually living longer, as proven by a study, is man bites dog. In the 24-second media news cycle we live in the dog needs to bite back faster and faster, and as you point out that did not happen here. As public relations practitioners it is our role to facilitate the biting (whether through the CDC or another organization). But in this case I think both sides are a bit guilty of over promoting or "wagging the dog." The media and the public have been so inundated with the obesity message that any "credible" study that said being a little overweight wasn't going to kill you would be welcomed like water in a desert - even it was only a mirage. The "think thin" movement clearly needs to clarify the facts, but they must be careful that in doing so they are not overly aggressive in their message. If they are they may be seen as chicken littles. And in a fat America some people like to eat their chickens - even the little ones.

Ken, the biggest problem for CDC was staff available in managing multiple crises But as further point there should have been a group of MDs on standby This obesity doesn't matter story was inevitable at some point CDC could have knocked it on its head in the early rounds before it got traction Thanks for writing I am in Seoul with my office

Richard: The main issue I have with the obesity alarmists is the obessessive focus on body fat as a sign of ill health. Anyone who has had a thin relative get seriously ill knows that too little body fat can quickly become a problem if they have health problems. And the over-emphasis on dieting as a way to lose weight may be making lots of money for companies, but it's not serving their customers well in the long term.

Eat healthy food several times a day. Get regular exercise. Get regular sleep. Anything more complicated than that, and I get suspicious of the message and the messenger.

Eric,
Sorry so long in getting back to you
Was in Asia and just back
Clearly you have a point I think my dad now 85 is too thin and this makes him vulnerable to upper respiratory illness and anything else
Thanks for writing
Richard

"A single study of questionable methodological integrity finds that moderately overweight people may live longer."

Hmm. That study was put out by CDC itself! Using CDC's own data! And was coauthored by people from NIH! And went through review and clearance at CDC and at NIH, who both approved the methods used. It says so right in the article. Julie Gerberding is talking out of both sides of her mouth on this.

Also there are many many studies that show that slight overweight is asociated with slightly reduced risk of deaths. It's not a 'single study'. Read the article! It sounds like Julie Gerberding has never read it!

Richard,

I agree with you - this is (potentially) a very profound time for our profession. However, what's been "disintermediated" recently seems to be the media and not PR. The bloggers and even sources like the Daily Show (as you've mentioned previously) are the "disintermediators" of media. And as your firm's research has so powerfully shown, people trust information that comes from "people like them" more so then they do media empires. That can be a neighbor or Jon Stewart or Oprah or a blogger, but I can't imagine it would ever be a PR guy or gal.

Good PR should always have been disintermediated from an organization's public persona. Let's look at issues management as an example, nobody wants to hear a message from the spokesperson - there's natural suspicion in that - they want to hear from the CEO.

The PR practitioner can serve as corporate conscience but that doesn't mean acting as the organization's public voice - whether on a soap box or in cyber space.

As practitioners we need to help our clients relate to this brave new world and that may mean disintermediating ourselves, but never our counsel.

I have been thinking about a lot of these same issues lately, and I think the key issue is this: personal passion and expertise are the lifeblood of blogs.

So then you have to ask three hard questions. #1 If you have a client with passion and expertise of their own, what can you as a PR person do for them? #2 If your client lacks passion and expertise, what chance do they have of running a successful blog anyway? #3 Have PR agencies ever been in the business of supplying passion and expertise (as opposed to crystallizing it and passing it on)?

I'm a marketing and PR writer, journalist, and blogger who experiences PR from all sides every day. I am more convinced than ever that a lot of our company's (www.gekkoproductions.com) clients should be blogging. I have been talking to them about how we can do for them to help them do that. But when I find someone who gets it, who really has the ingredients to build a successful blog, I'm convinced that the best thing for me to do to ensure their success is to get out of the way. If PR agencies find the same thing, it's hard to know what the long-term play is.

Dear Mr. Edelman,

As both a blogger and a recently-trained student of the Edelman way, I think Weinberger is missing a central point.

While skeptics may challenge PR's credibility, the utter subjectivity and unreliability of individual bloggers is evident even to cock-eyed optimists. Blogs offer an exceptional avenue for free speech, but there is no quality control on their output. While online digests like the Drudge Report or the Wonkette may make available intriguing information that might otherwise be suppressed, there are few consequences for their (sometimes serious) missteps.

This gives PR even greater potential as a catalyst for communication between individuals and corporate interests. The presence of a mediator who is accountable to both parties is essential to productive dialogue.

Thank you for addressing this interesting issue. In my future blogging, I will keep in mind your confidence in the medium's contributions to both PR and the public interest!

Yours,

Anna

I think there is real role for PR to instigate the conversation. I recently read a thought provoking essay about PR by Paul Graham.(The Submarine at paulgraham.com/submarine.html) It seems to me that communities are always happy to include people who start conversations. I can imagine a PR person who identified themselves as a real person who worked as a PR person for a company and who really knows a compnay or a product blogging about that product. They could be aritculate and thought provoking and they would have to be personal and authentic. They couldn't be a faceless nameless wizard behind the curtain. How is what Scoble just said today about Target any different than what an intelligent articulate PR person could say. The key of course would be honesty and real knowledge about the product, company or issue being talked about. But if a PR person really has a seat at the table they have a fantastic perspective to create the conversation and be a part of it. Does that make sense?

In any of these visions, though, (Ken's, Anna's, or Marion's) even in the best case scenario the role for PR is severely limited compared to the past.

Whether PR acts as counselor, intermediary, or converstation starter, how big of a shop can that take, and how much can you really charge for it? It used to be executives needed a PR firm to communicate (via traditional media) with their core audience at all. Now it seems all they need is a blog, some search engine optimization, and perhaps a counselor. Thanks to this technology we're using right now, there's less work to be done to connect the people with the ideas (Mr. Edelman) with the people who are interested in the ideas (Ken, Marion, Anna, and myself).

Also, I can't shake the notion that the blogosphere is a roadhouse full of bikers who hate fakers, especially people who are paid to hold certain opinions. You earn your chops here with a clean conscience and a bare soul.

I wonder how many PR people can hang with that crowd.

David Weinberger has some excellent points and we should listen. The Williams/VNR fiasco (and to a lesser extent, the Fleishman overbilling issue in L.A.)are defining points for our industry. PR has always been "behind the veil" and now we are being called into account. We have to apply self-therapy and that is never easy.

A positive note is this blog, and the many other PR bloggers out there willing to take their thoughts public. Bravo for Elliot Sloane, who quit the Council of PR Firms because of their "tepid" response to the Armstrong Williams affair. If I was going to hire a PR firm or paractitioner I would want to know that they have a strong policy on ethics and they understand and embrace new media.

PR has the potential to take a leadership role on raising the standards of ethical media practices. We shouldn't blow it by refusing comment or cowering behind wishy-washy responses. We should do what we counsel clients to do - admit the mistake, vow to correct it, take corrective action, move on. Maybe this period of forced self-reflection will lead to a new way of practicing our craft and offer valuable services to clients. I am enjoying this blog because of the important ideas being discussed, and the diverse opinions. I am also enjoying it because the CEO of a major global PR firm is willing to go public with his views. The veil is being lifted.

Ken,

I would happily step aside as spokesperson That should be best practice in any case You are right that our key role is advice and counsel

Henry,

I agree that we should get out of the way of the client But only after we have worked hard to listen to the marketplace To discuss various creative options To establish a multiplicity of channels Then to listen again so we can advise on way forward

Richard

Mark,
Thanks for writing
We have to raise our game...period
We cannot be perceived to be undermining the integrity of the media through pay for play Nor can we be intermediaries who are barriers to conversation or progress

Anna,

I see blogs as being accountable...in the long run Those of us in PR should try to provide bloggers with enough information to help to insure accuracy...and enough access to our executives so there is credible source Thanks for readking...by the way I am Harvard College 76 and Harvard B School 78 and my daughter is entering class of Harvard College 2009

Marion,

This should be our aspiration
PR person belongs at the C suite table as much as chief counsel employee relations director Then we have enough real authority to be spokesperson

Sorry to be so late jumping in. I was out of the country all last week. How convenient :) And now there are too many really interesting comments to reply to.

First, thanks, Richard, for presenting my side of our discussion.

And just to pick up one point: Marion, I too can imagine a knowledgeable, passionate PR person writing a blog about a product, and, as you say, being transparent about it. But that's going to be rare. Worse, the PR person is going to have to overcome our natural -- and, frankly, justified -- distrust of what she says because we'll know that she's being paid to "spin." And how free is she going to feel to criticize the client when she thinks she deserves it? The fact is that people who are paid to say good things about X are by that fact unlikely to be credible on the topic of X. So, while it is IMAGINABLE that a PR person could become a trusted, respected blogger about a topic for which she's paid as a PR person, I don't think that's a credible MODEL for PR going forward.

That's not to say that there are no models. E.g., I think there's more value than ever in the PR person being a "matchmaker," in Richard's terms: Putting the public in touch with people in the client's organization who have something real to say and are able to talk in a real, uncontrolled human voice. I.e., disintermediating PR.

Richard,

First I am loving the discussion thats going on here. I just have a couple of things. I noticed that in your original post you said:

"I believe that we can be content creators, in finding credible advocates and in bringing together various parties to resolve important issues..."

The issue I have is that (as others have mentioned)you are a paid advocate for a particular side of the story. I understand your potential as an industry if ethics and true impartiality were the standard not just in ideology but in practice across the board. I don't believe taht this is the case if you look at the recent(new one found yesterday) rash of paid reporters and "undisclosed" VNR's. More importantly than what I think, the general public seams to agree with me.

However all is not lost, yet. If the industry can get itself into the position of being the bringer/facilitator of honest 2-way communications in all forms of media but specificaly with your clients. This could prove to make the PR industry the new 4th estate since our press have lost their bite(much less the willingness to bite). With some good co-operation in the industry it could be the begining of the "new big boom" in PR! All while building trust with the public.

Thanks for listening to a non-PR person.

-matt

Matt we are certainly not there yet.But we have to aspire to this new vision of PR--smart, ethical , transparent
Not blocking mediating spinning those are the old words and old ways
Best practices will win the day

Richard

I want to believe the PR profession and its best practioners could serve as neutral (I realize pure objectivity is an ideal) third-parties, but as I want to believe the best news and investigative journalists do likewise. But I don't, because the money relationships corrupt often enough that I don't trust PR nor corporate news journalism. The PR profession's primary role is to persuade. I understand it as a subset of marketing. A PR firm, like a news organization, must trade services, readers/viewers/listeners, whatever, to money. That's fair. It's just that I can't buy it, can't take PR at "face value." No offense intended, just can't see how the leopard can change its spots. PR's best practices will only do better persuading, and if the metrics of persuasion are the appropriate metrics, then all right. If PR becomes transparent in revealing its money relationships, well, that will be interesting...

BTW, my church, the most idealistic AND realistic organization I know, has to deal with similar issues of achieving an altruistic mission and still keeping the lights on. It works, but then we have just that, a mission that is bigger than us. (There's another fundamental difference, but that's another conversation.) I don't expect PR to be a religion, I just mention this because I think that until you change the fundamental mission of PR, best practices will just be more of the same.

Henry,

I am not suggesting that PR firms are objective Simply that PR firms would be smart to avoid making unsubstantiated claims That we have to live up to a higher standard given our wired world Because our content may well go direct to end user And if it is wrong then the whole industry suffers And if we buy our way onto the page then the media and PR industry suffer Thanks for writing

Richard