« The Fork in the Road | Main | Some Good Advice for CEOs »
June 5, 2006
Why Bother?
I addressed a Public Relations Society of America conference on Friday on the need to adapt PR practice to the new media environment. I got a question from an attendee that went something like this. "Why do you bother to speak out so bluntly about our business? Aren't you afraid of the negative consequences to your company? Don't your colleagues ask you to cease and desist?"
It so happens that I was in the middle of reading Shakespeare's Othello and came across this passage that answers the question. Cassio, lieutenant and number two to the Moor, stands accused of drunk and disorderly behavior and is seeking the assistance of Othello's personal aide, Iago.
Cassio: "Reputation, reputation reputation! O, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself and what remains is bestial. My reputation, Iago, reputation."
Later in the play, speaking to his master Othello, Iago says, "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls; Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed."
We are at a moment of great opportunity for the PR business. In a world of consumer generated content, infinite media choices, lack of trust in traditional institutions, and desire for peer-to-peer learning, we are well suited to be the communications discipline of choice.
But there is a huge elephant in the room. The PR business at present lacks the credibility to take that leadership position in communications. Because we are defined by our more controversial professionals, who tend to come from the political or entertainment worlds, we are characterized as spinmeisters and flacks.
How can we get out of this stereotyped second-class citizen role?
First, we need to amend our work product, to get away from message triangles, hyped up press releases and controlling access to our clients. We should move toward conversations, a full set of facts (positive and negative) about products or companies, and open discussion.
Second, we should confront misbehavior in PR such as pay-for-play in a public manner so that the business community and other stakeholders know that we do not condone malpractice.
Third, we need to promote our best work to these same publics; the coverage of the central role played by PR in the General Motors' board reaffirmation of its support of CEO Rick Wagoner in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required) is a perfect example. Steve Harris, Wagoner's PR advisor (and a great guy), is quoted as saying, "Listen Rick, perception is reality...you have become the story of the company...you need positive confrontation, challenging negative news reports." Harris suggested the Detroit Project which would "send Mr. Wagoner out himself to defend GM and his leadership. . .to sway the national thought leader media," the Wall Street Journal reports. "Mr. Harris set up media appearances that trumpeted GM's strengths but also his own."
Fourth, PR people should persuade clients to take the risk of speaking out about important issues of our time. As Joe Klein, author of Politics Lost, has written recently, "Real leadership throughout history has involved the defiance of conventional wisdom, the breaking of rules. Politicians themselves have to figure out new ways to engage and inspire us...or maybe just some simple old ways, like saying what they think as plainly as possible...to tell the public at least one unpleasant truth or something substantive they hadn't heard from a politician before." We must deal with complex issues, such as environment or outsourcing not through simple messages but by engaging in substantive dialogue that expresses a clear position but is open to continuous improvement through feedback.
Technorati Tags:
PR, Public Relations, Reputation, GM
Posted by Edelman at June 5, 2006 8:46 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.edelman.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/188
Comments
“First… we should move toward conversations, a full set of facts about products or companies, and open discussion.”
As organizers or strategists? Slashdot is an open discussion. And as an environment it is completely antithetical to what PR does for a living.
Bottom line: the further away from strategy you move us Richard… the less important to have PR involved at all.
“Second, we should confront misbehavior in PR so that the business community and other stakeholders know that we do not condone malpractice.”
What percent of the Edelman staff will futz with their hours today? Glass house and all, you need to be careful here.
“Third, we need to promote our best work to these same publics.”
Doing good work is a given; one would hope.
“Fourth, PR people should persuade clients to take the risk of speaking out about important issues of our time. We must deal with complex issues, such as environment or outsourcing not through simple messages but by engaging in substantive dialogue that expresses a clear position but is open to continuous improvement through feedback.”
Depends. The day a PR person can specifically tell me how much the downside of the risk they’re recommending might cost me, is the day I might listen to that suggestion.
Posted by: Amanda Chapel at June 6, 2006 10:45 AM
Nowdays, even in the USA, should we stop sending press releases and start a blogging effort as a main instrument of our Communications strategy? Is there today, enough percentage of companies who are really blogging? Could the press releases and blogging, during a time, live toghether as parts of the same strategy? For how long? If the press releases are still necessaries, must they change and transform like an a sort of 'open source' text?
On the other hand, I think that we are living, as Communications professionals, our historical opportunity to become really important people in companies and other types of organitations. The thecnology, the market and the society need today a kind of professional who knows how to dialogue. And this characteristic is part of our DNA.
Sorry for my English mistakes.
Benito Castro, Seville (Europe).
Posted by: benito castro at June 6, 2006 11:06 AM
"How can we get out of this stereotyped second-class citizen role? First, we need to amend our work product, to get away from message triangles, hyped up press releases and controlling access to our clients. We should move toward conversations, a full set of facts (positive and negative) about products or companies, and open discussion."
By that- is it safe to assume you'd support the call for disclosure of VNRs? I am quite surprised that before the Center For Media and Democracy's report on the nationwide saturation of VNRs, the FCC was relatively in the dark about the phenomenon.
I feel that PR practitioners who oppose the disclosure of VNR sources (i.e. their paying clients) are only doing their industry a huge disservice. Likewise, the TV "journalists" who package the VNRs as their own news (only editing graphics to match their own and omitting sources) are also perpetuating the 'second class citizen' stigma of PR professionals-- since it's more common that PR professionals are held accountable for flacking 'fake news,' not the first class citizen journalists who use it.
Mr. Edelman, I'd be very interested to hear you position on how the PR industry should respond to the current climate of VNR criticism and accountability issues. Thank you.
Posted by: Rachel Solomon at June 8, 2006 12:17 PM