« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »
August 29, 2006
L'Etat, C'Est Moi (The State, That's Me)
With these immortal lines, King Louis XIV of France provided a standard for those in government or in business, who believe that their individual leadership is the essential ingredient in the success of the enterprise. In keeping with this general line of thinking Saturday's edition of the (sub. req'ed) Financial Times featured an article by US business editor Francesco Guerrera titled "Forget the Salary Packages, Look at the Size of Their Egos."
Guerrara reports on a new study from Penn State professors Arijit Chatterjee and Don Hambrick titled, "It's All About Me; Narcissistic CEOs and Their Effects on Company Strategy and Performance." The professors argue that "corporate chieftains with super sized egos favor grandiose and higher-risk strategies...acquisitions, large-scale product launches and aggressive international expansion...they can hit big but they can also miss big." The professors claim that the size of the CEO photo in the annual report, the number of times "I" is used in the shareholder letter and even the CEO's entry in the Who's Who directory are key variables for determining ego.
Guerrara contends that in the current "gloomy" business environment, "new opportunities are hard to come by for established players in developed economies…that companies long admired for their strategic prowess (BP, Dell) suggest that being the darlings of management consultants is no protection against operational pitfalls...(this) calls for CEOs with steady nerves a willingness to do the boring bits and downsizeable egos; more bashfulness and less BHAGs(Big Hairy Audacious Goals)."
Despite Guerrara"s cogent argument about the dangers of the ego-driven CEO, companies need real leaders who communicate constantly, in a real tone (without the message triangles and staged settings), and are willing to listen to stakeholders. For CEOs and their harried PR directors attempting to offer counsel in a tumultuous and increasingly looking to strike the right balance, here are a few observations:
1) Nobody achieves true success by daring only modestly. Great companies continue to evolve and to take risk. Using a sports analogy, you cannot win unless you throw the ball down field in American football. Lee Scott's embrace of the environment as a potential competitive advantage for Wal-Mart is intelligent strategy daringly implemented.
2) Communicating the goals of the corporation can no longer be done by one person. The PR director should work against the tendency of the media to personalize the company culture in the form of the CEO. The dispersion of authority to employee bloggers, the baristas at Starbucks and other credible sources means that the company is secure in its values and able to share its successes.
3) Though Wall Street pushes companies to make short term numbers, the company's long term mantra needs to remain fixed. Look at P&G's A.G. Lafley's emphasis on serving the consumer; he fits everything from R&D to marketing under that rubric.
4) Companies need allies in the constant pursuit of credibility. The GE Eco-Imagination program was embraced by the company's former opponents in civil society, the NGOs, because they had input to the initiative and felt that it validated the "green can be green" thesis.
Mr. Guerra, it is the wrong message to tell CEOs to be more bashful. They should be out in the marketplace selling the company narrative. They should empower customers and employees to speak out. They should be passionate advocates on issues like intellectual property protection, catalyzing public support for their lobbying efforts with government. In a world of "continuous partial attention," this is what is required of successful leaders.
In this context, I want to acknowledge the (sub. req'ed) PRWeek editorial of Aug. 28th concerning Edelman's decision to stand down from the Council of PR Firms. We have the utmost respect for our competitors that remain members of Council. We have an abiding and shared interest in the issues facing the PR industry, from diversity to ethics. However, we disagree with the Council on a few fundamental points. Nevertheless, we will continue to be advocates for the PR industry to help all of us achieve the full potential of the business.
Technorati Tags:
CEO, PR, Public Relations
Posted by Edelman at 10:51 AM
Comments
You should rename your blog post, "The PR Industry, That's Me". Just like the egotist CEOs of old, the big PR agency honchos -- like you -- are also on their way out. As for your decision with the Council -- Edelman couldn't take the heat. It shows just how bankrupt your agency is when it comes to ethics.
Posted by: James Bruni at August 31, 2006 6:07 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackAugust 21, 2006
Two Extraordinary Men
I had dinner on Sunday night with Shimon Peres, Foreign Minister of Israel, and breakfast on Saturday with George Soros, the founder of Soros Fund Management. I tagged along with Ned Lamont, my friend and candidate for US Senate (hey, whatever it takes to meet these kinds of people!).
I was, needless to say, impressed by the perspective and insights from these two men. Despite--or because of--their age, they're as considered, passionate and energetic as men half their age. I think it is worth asking why our profession, public relations, has been so quick to adopt a culture of youth.
When called upon at the dinner, Minister Peres reflected on Israel's recent action against Hezbollah in Lebanon. He stated that Israel had little choice but to confront the growing menace on its northern border, with its 12,000 missiles and swelling ranks of volunteers. He acknowledged that the Israeli Army had been surprised by the tenacity of its opposition. He reiterated his hope that the Government of Lebanon could reconstitute itself without Hezbollah and that the UN Peacekeeping Mission could take its place within a week.
He switched quickly over to a vision for the future of the region. He believes that America must stay the course in Iraq, to give the new government time to become credible. He is convinced that the long-run economic interests of the nation states will override ideology and religion, that citizens will prefer improved living standards and better jobs over constant fighting. "You must look at the world in 50 to 100 year cycles," he said.
He then reflected on his 82nd birthday (two days before), suggesting that what matters most is not the profession you choose but the manner in which you do it. He was being driven back to NY City at 11:30 PM so that he could start the day at work. "If you live this way, you can live twice," he said. His fundamental optimism and European charm are impossible to resist.
Soros has just completed his latest book, "The Age of Fallibility; Consequences of the War on Terror." He was very pleased with Ned Lamont's primary victory over Senator Joe Lieberman, believing that it marks a significant turn in attitude for the American populace on the war in Iraq (he is a serious critic of the Bush Administration). He handed me his new book; here are a few excerpts.
"In the open society...no claim to the ultimate truth can be validated and therefore no group should be allowed to impose its views on all the rest."
"We (in America) have been pursuing success without much concern for the truth. As a result, we have become a feel-good society, unwilling to confront unpleasant realities. We want our elected leaders to make us feel good."
"Respect for truth can no longer be taken for granted; it has become a matter of values...intellectual honesty and integrity."
Both Peres and Soros are well beyond the normal age of retirement and are still greatly enhancing the global dialogue. They are in the most demanding professions (politics and finance) with fast-changing environments and complex constituencies. The challenges of the next decade will include funding of health care, inter-generational shifts of money (estate tax), and funding of private pensions. We need the insights of those from the earliest part of the Baby Boom (and yes those who are in their 70s and 80s) to solve these communications problems. The limitation of procurement-lead contracts with large PR firms is that work is done by the more junior executives and can exclude specific time for senior strategic counsel. I observe that many of the best PR practitioners move into academia or into other non-profit pursuits. This is noble and necessary but should not be the universal solution. Let's consider flexible working hours, consulting arrangements and other mechanisms to assure that we have the perspective of those who are in this large and influential market segment.
Posted by Edelman at 11:00 AM
Comments
Congratulations on meeting the mythic Soros! And thanks for sharing some insights from his new book. Would you mind elaborating on the issues of procurement-lead contracts? Are there other kinds of contracts that do allow for the strategic counsel you recommend? Is this a problem exclusive to large firms? I can say that my own future work-life-balance ambitions make flexible working hours and telecommuting options highly appealing and the lower on the corporate ladder those are offered -- even for one day a week -- the better. Should you start weighing the sides of this option, here's a link to an article about HP cutting back its telecommuting policy: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14732974.htm
All the best.
Posted by: Eric Hansen at August 21, 2006 1:16 PM
I concur fully that a professional business benefits greatly from keeping its senor counselors and continuing to involve them as contributors in client work. However, your reference to "procurement-led contracts" being one of the sources of failure to do this is revealing.
Surely firms can assess their own economics and make the investment in retaining senior advisors without having to justify whether or not they are "billable" or "chargeable" at collectable rates from specific clients. The mentality of "if we can't bill it, we don't want it" is NOT just a problem cause by external clients - its a philoophical weakness and limitation of how PR firms are managed.
Posted by: David Maister at August 21, 2006 2:07 PM
Excellent insights David. Of course PR firms are not the only professional organizations dealing with this issue, be it management philosophy or stemming from the delicate client-professional relationship. Are there other fields or models that can be looked to for ideas? For instance, law firms must face similar issues retaining top counsel and have a business model similar to PR firms. Judging from your Web site, this is your field of expertise. Have you encountered a way to shift to an economic model of the strength to which you eluded? Thanks for weighing in.
Posted by: Eric Hansen at August 22, 2006 2:24 PM
As an intern in various PR firms, I've noticed the lack of older, seasoned executives coupled with the trend of senior leaders going into academia. My university's communications department just hired two high-level executives who could very well have continued in the PR industry for an additional 20 years.
Also, you mention inter-generational shifts of money as a challenge for the next decade. Certainly Generation Y's college debt combined with our national debt will become a big factor before the decade is up. In 2005, undergraduate students borrowed, on average, $19,300 from all sources, up from $12,100 a decade earlier (U.S. Dept. of Education).
Peres, Soros, Lamont and Edelman all at one table - wish I could have been a fly on the wall for that one!
Posted by: Jon Schweitzer at August 23, 2006 1:46 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackAugust 16, 2006
Ned's Excellent Adventure
A week ago, my friend Ned Lamont pulled off a stunning upset in the Democratic Primary in Connecticut. Running against three term incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman, who just six years ago was nearly elected Vice President of the United States, Lamont won by four points, amazing pundits and his own inner circle including yours truly. Note that in the initial polls, Lamont was down by 40 points! (Full disclosure: I held a fund raiser for Ned.)
Here are some lessons from the campaign that might be useful to those of us in the private sector:
1) Be Who You Are-Senator Lieberman is known as a decent and devoted public servant, with never a bad word for Democrat nor Republican. Yet when he came to debate Ned, he refused to shake hands with his opposite number, he sneered at Ned's responses and was generally disrespectful. The result was a 10 point gain in the polls for Ned, who acted throughout as a gentleman of great intelligence and enthusiasm, the usual role for Joe Lieberman.
2) Visuals Matter-The single most important visual was of President Bush kissing Senator Lieberman on the cheek as he strode down the aisle to deliver the State of the Union address in January. This image corroborated Lamont's contention that Senator Lieberman had lost his way in his blind support of the President and that Connecticut should elect a real Democrat.
3) When You Have a Winning Issue, Stay With It-Lamont made it clear from the outset that he was the anti-war candidate. He has suggested establishment of a firm deadline for withdrawal of American troops from the front lines, to be replaced by Iraqis. Though he has also talked about national health insurance and a robust education plan, the exit polls indicated that 80% of those voting for Lamont did so because of the war in Iraq.
4) Address Your Weaknesses Early and Directly-Lieberman's camp tried to portray Lamont as a rich guy without qualifications for high office. Lamont turned the tables on this gambit by going public with his personal net worth and by discussing his successful small business start-up in the cable industry. He had real world experience with employee health costs and the need for better technical training.
5) Engage with the Blogosphere-When the Lieberman campaign made a big announcement about Lamont's ownership of stock in Halliburton, the Lamont campaign did its own quick research and found that the Senator also held shares in the same company. A few bloggers (Daily Kos as example) were given the story, which was then picked up by mainstream media. In fact, the blogosphere has been a key asset for Lamont's campaign, discussing his views, magnifying the impact of his ad campaign and speeches. One funny ad on YouTube, which was picked- up some blogs, parodies the negative attacks against Ned by showing his family critiquing Ned's coffee making skills which Ned acknowledges lamely.
6) Don't Be Over-Scripted-I asked Ned how he prepared for his appearance on Face the Nation on CBS News on Sunday. He told me that he read the Sunday newspapers. He came off as a plain-spoken, thoughtful man able to bring something different to the Senate. He is not afraid to say that SUVs ought to be counted in the fleet mileage targets for auto companies or that a needed revaluation of the Chinese currency relative to the dollar might well mean higher prices at Wal-Mart.
Technorati Tags:
Lamont
Posted by Edelman at 8:19 AM
Comments
I am very pleased that Lamont is the Democratic nominee. Lieberman's decline has been slow, but sure. This was a man for whom election day could not come quickly enough. He was losing ground by the day. In then end, I'm sure in his heart of hearts, he knew he was going to lose. If Lieberman stays in the race (as covered in today's NY Times piece), his reputation will be forever tarnished - win or lose.
Posted by: Leo Bottary at August 16, 2006 11:31 AM
Richard:
Look for Lieberman to win in November as an Independent and teach all naysayers a valuable and very basic political lesson: candidates win elections not just be sticking with the Party line, but by the support of all voters and supporters. Lieberman is a true man of integrity and doesn't make his decisions based on popularity, but by what he knows is right. A lesson not only for politics, but for life. I like your blog. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Mike Paul at August 17, 2006 2:34 AM
I'm always proud of a man who stands by his convictions and his country. It's unfortunate that in times of war, politicians divide people, aid American enemies and perpetuate the slaughter of American lives. Lieberman's got personal convictions. I applaud that.
And Lamont? I don't know enough about him YET "anti-war" makes me a skeptic.
Posted by: Roy Miller at August 17, 2006 12:08 PM
How does your support for Lamont square with his opposition to your favorite client Walmart? Read the frontpager in today's Times. Every Democrat worth his/her salt is jumping on the antiWalmart bandwagon. Looks like he isn't listening to any of your advice re: Walmart.
Posted by: Jim Bruni at August 17, 2006 1:15 PM
Have you seen the latest polls. Let's see who is at the finish line of the race come November. I strongly believe Lieberman will win by at least a few points. Why? Because he is a man of integrity and don't just vote the party line. He votes and speaks out for what he believes is right for all people. It is what true leaders do. I predict his naysayers will have to eat hay soon.
Posted by: Mike Paul at August 17, 2006 3:50 PM
Hear again, we can bring back the discussion of the effectiveness of blogs. Ned Lamont is a fringe candidate that looks like he will be defeated in a state wide election (currently down 12%). He won the primary -- by very specific targeting.
I view blogs the same way -- very localized targeting. Nothing huge by way of impressions -- and very difficult to value.
There are tens of millions of blogs out there -- read by some 2-4 million Americans. It is growing -- but the incredible segmentation will be their own undoing. Perhaps we will end up with a handful of decent, reliable blogs -- but the rest will be absorbed into the internet never to be heard of again.
Blogs will have the same fate as Lamont -- nice start, lots of fanfare -- but really affecting nothing in the long run.
Posted by: Chris McTague at August 20, 2006 7:18 PM
I thought there would be two dozen comments here. I did read Hee-Haw Marketing's observation and found it refreshing. Could make for a tough final when there's a Democrat running as an Independent supported by the Republicans in a state with so many registered Independents. Let's hope the voters see through it. I always considered Connecticut a pretty smart, saavy state. We're getting ready to find out for sure.
Posted by: Leo Bottary at August 21, 2006 1:41 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackAugust 7, 2006
Hit Me with Your Best Shot, Again and Again
Der Spiegel, a leading German magazine, has a major feature story in this issue(translated into English by Edelman's Hamburg office), titled "Master of Deception." The subtitle tells it all, "PR is a growing billion dollar industry, primarily manipulating our perception of the world. The professionals from the industry are even assisting in staging wars." The PR community in Germany is of two minds on the piece; they are flattered that the industry warranted such extensive coverage, in fact the first time such a comprehensive article has been written on PR. On the other hand, German PR executives are puzzled that almost all of the examples cited in the article are about American PR firms working with American clients, as if PR is a uniquely American profession.
This article is basically a conflation of cinema-induced fantasy, anti-Americanism, anti President Bush, anti-capitalism, and fear of propaganda stemming from World War II. The reporter gives it away in his conclusion. When discussing Edward Bernays, one of the founding fathers of the PR industry, he notes that Bernays (who was Jewish) bragged about Nazi propaganda chief Goebbels "had all of my books in his library." The journalist quotes Bernays as saying, "If you understand the psyche. . .of the population. . .you can control the masses. . .and lead them without them noticing."
The reporter blasts three Edelman clients (GE, Wal-Mart, Chiquita) for "greenwashing" and utilizing a "war room" in a crisis. In each of the three cases, the company in question has fundamentally changed its supply chain, often at great expense and even risk to the business, because it takes a long-term view of its responsibility in society. The role of PR was much more than the "fog of war;" it involved brokering relationships with credible non-governmental organizations, explaining the changes to employees and other stakeholders, and persuading consumers that a new logo meant environmentally friendly, so that they in turn can make an informed purchase decision.
That is why I was so upset by the Wall Street Journal's revelation of involvement by a PR firm, the DCI Group, (sub. req'ed) in the spoofing of the Al Gore documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," because it reinforces so much of the Der Spiegel story line. Here we have PR people declining to say whether the firm had a role in the production of the anti-Gore penguin video, alleging instead that it came from an amateur named Toutsmith in Beverly Hills. Problem is the email originated from DCI's Washington office and DCI works for Exxon Mobil, which explicitly denies involvement with the spoof. The Journal story goes on to say that "traffic to the penguin video. . .got a boost from prominently placed sponsored links. . .on the Google search engine when users typed in Al Gore or Global Warming. . . but the ads were removed shortly after the Wall Street Journal contacted DCI Group on Tuesday."
PR firms have the right to be advocates for their clients. What they cannot do is dissemble about client or motive. Nor can they put up content, then take it down after achieving the desired viral effect. We should stop thinking that short term tactical advantage is intelligent strategy. The best public relations is done in the open, with real debate on the issues. Our job is to provide full information to facilitate better decision making. As Harold Burson notes in the Der Spiegel article, "PR is about doing good and being recognized for it."
Technorati Tags:
Public Relations, PR, Media
Posted by Edelman at 11:19 AM
Comments
"Anti-Americanism is the internationalism of imbeciles"; someone once said that (can't remember who I'm afraid) and it's a brand of internationalism that afflicts parts of Europe at the moment (there's a US equivalent as well by the way). As for Der Speigel, it's pretty left wing and I'm not sure it reflects the true view of many in Germany.
Posted by: david brain at August 7, 2006 12:27 PM
"PR firms have the right to be advocates for their clients."
Here, so as we are clear as to what we mean by that, let's define more clearly the role of PR. There are four types of basic PR engagements (see http://www.strumpette.com/archives/160-Gimme-Shelter.html):
1. An internal department or a firm is engaged to "Get the word out" about something good for society. This is actually quite rare as there are very few things today that are good for society. Actually, if it's any good, the news tends to pick it up on their own and people find it themselves.
2. Create "buzz" around something potentially harmful. One of the highest paid PR people on the planet works for Philip Morris. Simply said, most if not all of the bad stuff that will surely give you cancer and kill ya, also happens to taste the best and is the most fun. PR is a necessary evil to help downplay the pesky "death" part.
3. Then there's the preverbal "Lipstick on a Pig" situations. All financial transactions are a matter of somebody wanting to get rid of something and somebody silly enough to think it has some value. PR helps gussy up that pig. Without the slippery PR, the financial markets would come to a grinding halt.
4. Lastly, there's "Weasel Couture." Examples of this are all too numerous. Suffice to say simply, Michael Jackson's publicist.
That in mind, I think your statement above would be more accurate if it read “PR firms have the right to compromise their principles on the way to the bank.”
Amanda Chapel
Managing Editor
Strumpette
Posted by: Amanda Chapel at August 7, 2006 12:39 PM
"PR is about doing good and being recognized for it."
Hmmm, I might buy *one* definition of PR as being "getting recognition for the good you do" but, sadly, too much PR is about creating images of organisations, products and people; of presenting a specific perspective on an issue for commercial advantage; of using statistics to convince; less about building relationships, more about creating perceptions.
So, Richard, you like to focus on one, Der Spiegel has chosen to focus on the other. Two sides of the same coin?
Posted by: Mark at August 7, 2006 1:01 PM
I completely agree with you regarding the way the PR industry is coming off in this case and why DCI was wrong.
I did some investigating on this and blogged about it at http://digitalstreetjournal.com/?p=113.
It turns out that one of Exxon's top lobbyist is a former Bush appointee the the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Philip Cooney. While at the White House, he 'edited out' findings by government scientists that warned of global warming. That was pretty controversial. Before that, he was at the American Petroleum Institute where he the "Climate Team Leader".
Posted by: Jonathan Trenn at August 7, 2006 7:52 PM
the article is absolutely correct.
Posted by: alescha lechner at August 8, 2006 5:42 AM
Mark,
I believe in the power of pr to make change. Our programs can focus attention on female self image or environment or prevention of cervical cancer via vaccine for teen age girls. I acknowledge that there are problems in our industry but many of them are self induced and preventible. Thanks for writing a comment
Posted by: Richard Edelman at August 8, 2006 7:54 AM
I have read the Der Spiegel report and the poor translation of it notwithstanding, you misrepresent the original story, Richard--even dragging out the anti-Semitic card--by parsing what the reporter wrote. While I don't agree with everything in the original story, I find your pointing fingers at the tactics of the DCI Group, or any other agency for that matter, ludicrous. Your shop and many others employ many of the same techniques every day--and you have the nerve to do some dissembling of your own, by challenging the veracity of their motives? Get off your throne, Richard, and start practicing what you preach.
Posted by: Byron Reimus at August 8, 2006 1:57 PM
Richard:
I enjoyed your post this week on the 6AM blog. Coincidentally I was briefly up against the DCI group in a proxy fight on behalf of Sovereign Bank this year. Sheinkopf was called in to provide aggressive campaign strategy to beat back an activist hedge fund seeking to destabilize the bank.
In my investigation, I found DCI group to be as fascinating as they are devious. They are allegedly behind Bushs Progress for America 527 as well as a number of Astroturf faux advocacy websites on behalf of corporate interests. They were the accused culprits in the slam polling of McCain in the 2000 primary calling the Senator a thief and a liar. Thomas Synhorst, founder of DCI, was also behind R.J. Reynolds campaign of distributing adults only tobacco literature in schools as a means of enticing underage smokers.
They seem to epitomize the sneaky, manipulative, underhanded side of the PR/Propaganda world.
Thanks for the post.
DV
Posted by: David Vermillion at August 8, 2006 2:27 PM
The poor translation of this report notwithstanding, you misrepresent the original story--even dragging out the anti-Semitic card--by selectively parsing. I certainly don't agree with everything in the Der Spiegel story. But someone out there in the PR industry blogsphere PLEASE tell me that I'm not the only one who finds Richard Edelman pointing fingers at the tactics of DCI Group (or any other agency for that matter) ludicrous? Your shop and many others employ many of the same techniques every day--and you have the nerve to impugn a competitor's motives? Kudos to you for starting and sustaining a blog. But with all due respect, Richard, I would encourage you to get off your blog-throne and demonstrate how you practice what you preach. And when it comes to dissembling, it seems to me that your agency's work for Wal-Mart is not a bad place to start.
Posted by: Byron Reimus at August 8, 2006 2:38 PM
BR,
What I dont like about the DCI action is the dissembling about motive and failure to disclose representation of client
As for my interpretation of the reporters basic view of PR, you are entitled to your view and I am going to stick with mine
I am not pulling out the anti-Semitic card, simply the bad memories of WWII and Nazi use of propaganda.
Posted by: Richard Edelman at August 8, 2006 4:01 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackAugust 2, 2006
Game On
PR Week has it exactly right in its editorial on July 31. Julia Hood and her team have asked, "Can PR keep the ball if ad pros play on its field?" (sub. req'ed).The editorial states, "This could not be a larger watershed moment; the ad industry is trying to out-PR PR." All of the talk at the Nielsen Buzz Metrics conference last week was about relationships, dialogue, learning from the crowd...in short the general proposition offered by public relations.
The advertising industry is facing a stark new reality. The traditional business of buying time and space in mainstream media is not a growth proposition. Why, you ask? Advertising alone is not sufficient to move the market. Note the huge $225 million spend this summer behind the "Dr. Z" campaign for DaimlerChrysler, which yielded a decline of 17% in July sales versus a year ago. According to Ad Age, "consumers were unmoved by the German-engineering positioning or the DaimlerChrysler chairman, whom they overwhelmingly (80%) believed was a fictional character."
The response from ad agencies is to develop their ancillary businesses, from direct marketing to interactive to public relations. The agencies have changed their names (JWT, not J Walter Thompson), boasted about their truly integrated campaigns (the Dove Real Beauty initiative - by the way, Edelman did the PR, not Ogilvy), and even hired chief marketing officers (Saatchi & Saatchi) who are tasked with persuading clients to undertake viral or other non-media based projects.
How can we compete in this environment where ad agencies are crowding our space?
First, explain to clients that PR must lead, advertising should follow. The Daimler campaign is an apt example. If the engineering credentials of Dr. Dieter Zetsche, the company chairman, had been established, the advertising might have succeeded. Note that the Lee Iacocca campaign on which this was premised, utilizing the then Chrysler CEO, had a man who had been lionized as the creator of the Ford Mustang and who had been outspoken on the need for a Federal bail-out for his company (small confession - it worked on me - I bought a Chrysler whose outstanding feature was a reminder that "the door is ajar" which always caused my dates to wonder why they ever accepted my fervent requests that they accompany me for a night on the town). Without the runway of trust established by PR, advertising cannot score in a world lacking trust and deficient in attention span.
Second, diversify our own offering so that it is clear that we are no longer solely in the small, preconceived box of PR as media relations. I am confident that we can offer consulting to the C-suite, viral promotional concepts, entertainment options including product placement, and CSR. We must educate our client leaders to be able to discuss this breadth of issues so that we can see off the advertising agency chief marketing officers who intend to steal our bacon.
Third, we need to innovate and push into areas traditionally owned by advertising. Edelman is working on a product we are calling conversational advertising. The idea is to turn advertising into a dialogue, not a one way street. We would write an op-ed ad at the top of the landing page, offer threaded conversations and the latest blog posts, plus a repository of authoritative web sites. Thus far, we have devised a product that could work for the corporate clients who are facing issues. We are now working on an offering that might appeal to product marketers who want to engage in a conversation.
Fourth, we have to promote ourselves more aggressively as thought leaders while being transparent about our activities. It was gratifying to see Burson-Marsteller included in yesterday's editorial on chief executive tenure in the Wall Street Journal (sub. req'ed). We have to come out from behind the curtain and stop the Wizard of Oz imitation. We should be open about what we are doing and how we are doing it. For instance, the article on the Wal-Mart war room run by our firm was important for the industry.
Fifth, big idea creative. We can own the idea. We will have best chance to do so if idea is rooted in solving social problem or grapples with major issue in society. Example would be Wal-Mart on environment.
Technorati Tags:
PR, Public Relations, Advertising
Posted by Edelman at 8:41 AM
Comments
Richard,
Did you write this or is it Satire? Are you sincerely advocating MORE self-promotion, MORE disintermediation, and LESS collaboration by pr professionals?
Or, perhaps, is this a Rally-the-Edelman-Troops moment since you weren't invited to the Wal*Mart party at Worldwide Plaza?
The best marketers are the people that learn how to apply strategic approaches to unique problems. The CEO and Board do not care whether their CMO or her advisors come from a "discipline", let alone a "lead discipline".
Leadership also requires discernment, knowing when to follow and when to support other subject matter experts.
I, for one, am thankful to have been taught strategic thinking across multiple disciplines at Ogilvy and not hood-winked at Edelman into complaining that the other guys are stealing MY BACON.
Posted by: Edward O'Meara at August 2, 2006 10:07 AM
Richard,
This is a fantastic post that really encapsualtes the feeling of the PR blogging community. Or at least my personal feeling.
We're all desperate for PR to take the lead and not let another opportunity slip through our fingers.
All the storm fronts are in place - the "web 2.0 revolution"; dissatisfaction with advertising and an increased number of PR grads - for PR to start taking the lead in the marketing process.
Ed
Posted by: Ed Lee at August 2, 2006 10:09 AM
PR people, with rare exception, are not in the C-Suite because we have a history of wearing our insecurity on our sleeves and using strategies such as "accreditation" to achieve self worth. We have done a horrific job managing our own reputation. How can we expect a CEO to believe that we should take the lead in managing theirs?
Clients want strong, self-assured leadership. Do you think they care whether it comes from the ad guy or the PR guy if its smart and will help the business? The landscape is changing rapidly, and if anything, we are better positioned to step up here. Richard's message is right on target, but until we adjust our role as messenger, we're screwed.
Posted by: Leo Bottary at August 2, 2006 4:10 PM
Richard,
Here are a few suggestions to add to your list:
1. Get smarter. At its best, PR offers deep insight into the culture at large and how to influence it. As companies struggle to understand the full impact of emerging media on how people think about and relate to their products, no industry is better positioned than PR to put all the pieces together. It’s also true (albeit a truth of the inconvenient sort) that most agencies and internal PR shops don’t have the right talent to fully leverage this advantage. Traditionally, we’ve hired people with communications or journalism backgrounds. They’re smart all right, and aggressive, and hip to the zeitgeist. They’re not the problem. The problem is all the talent we don’t have. Where are the economists, the cultural anthropologists, the psychologists? Not here. Not now. It’s tough to come up with powerful ideas, integrative ideas, ideas that really are going to move the culture, without powerful and different kinds of thinkers.
2. Get connected. PR pros do a lot of talking, but we’re way behind other disciplines when it comes to talking – and listening – to consumers. One step we’ve taken in my business to address this shortcoming is to merge Interactive Marketing and PR. Not only does this give us the firepower to expand our online offerings, it gives us the ability to target and reach out to consumers directly. It’s even changed the way we think about designing PR. Next week, for example, we’ll hold a real-time interactive session with over 100 consumers in preparation for a new product launch. It won’t be a market research session. We already know what consumers think about the product. The point of this session is to have consumers help us create the PR program for the launch.
3. Get on with it. If PR is dying, we’ve already written its epitaph. It goes something like this: “we’ll do a survey and a press release; partner with a non-profit; and hire (fill in your favorite grade B celebrity here) to do an SMT. Oh, and we’ll build a web site.” For all the talk about the future of PR, the fact is that most agencies come in most of the time with the same old pitch. And there’s a reason for that. Just like AOL’s subscriber model, traditional PR remains a cash cow, even as we count down the days to its inevitable demise. It’s past time to get moving on what’s next.
Posted by: Kosmos at August 2, 2006 6:31 PM
Edward,
I do not write satire. I think that the presumption has been that ad agencies act as coordinators of multiple communications disciplines. I intend to challenge that notion. There are times when PR should lead.
Posted by: Richard Edelman at August 3, 2006 10:09 AM
Press agentry is by no means the only skill on the bench.
Because advertising is a PR tool, it should be on the bench too.
Because PR is involved with values, it has custody of the brand conversation but the CMO can bring on the water.
No one else can play on this field. It is the C Suite.
But they can shout from the terraces.
Posted by: David Phillips at August 3, 2006 12:07 PM
With all of the mergers of PR and ad agencies -- finding any independance is like trying to find the burnt chip in a Lays bag. Few and far between.
After reading the PR Week article, I understand where Richard is coming from --don't necessarily agree -- but I know where he is coming from.
Communications is becoming more and more muddy. Just think of the way we are receiving information today -- and you can only barely see the difference between PR and advertising.
How many of our PR agencies have used a service like NAPS to distribute our mat releases? Isn't that advertising -- guaranteed placement? What are blogs -- certainly not traditional PR by any means -- and probably closer to advertising with a lower price point.
The nexus of PR and advertising is here because the media has already changed. We must be aware and use any means necessary to provide the coverage we can get for our clients.
Posted by: Chris McTague at August 6, 2006 9:47 PM
McTague makes a valid point, one that makes any self-respecting - or self-deprecating, as it may be - PR professional cringe. Paid media such as NAPS or any other horrific service is suffocating our bread and butter, yet we're being forced to play in that field. It's truly scary. And that?s why Richard point is so? poignant. We?ve got to get creative and blur the lines between advertising and PR, while trying to maintain some amount of integrity. Personally, I see one-on-one viral marketing taking over. Yes, it?s true that the cost-per-hit ratio will go up exponentially, but if your messages are ultra-targeted, then your ROI will (read: should) also increase at the same or similar rate.
Posted by: WT at August 8, 2006 5:19 PM
Richard,
Just a point of clarification. When you wrote "(the Dove Real Beauty initiative - by the way, Edelman did the PR, not Ogilvy)" this is not true in Asia. Ogilvy PR won the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty work at the regional level and also won local execution in many markets. I personally worked with Research International in crafting 1,700 pages of new research in Asia, and with a colleague in Hong Kong wrote the new 50-page white paper in Asia as well as created the complete tool kits used by all agencies in Asia--whether Ogilvy PR or not. I do not believe Edelman handled any of the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty work in Asia. This was not a mere copy of the US work pioneered by Ogilvy & Mather and Edelman in the US, but instead a very tribal look contrasting attitudes by country (including traditional rivals), by demographic and by psychographic. Then public debates were created in local markets with sources we tracked down.
I do agree that in 360 Degree Brand Stewardship PR can or should take the lead in many cases. In the Ogilvy approach to the Campaign for Real Beauty in Asia, we assembled a team that came to Bangkok that included the client, PR, advertising, activation, online and direct marketing all around the same table with no one party dominating.
Best regards,
Chris Graves
President & CEO, Asia Pacific
Ogilvy PR
Posted by: Christopher Graves at August 20, 2006 3:46 AM