« March 2008 | Main | May 2008 »
April 25, 2008
Alliance of Belief
I attended the annual dinner of the Atlantic Council of the United States on Monday night in Washington, DC. Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, delivered the keynote address. His central thesis was that the world needs to move beyond alliances based on interests to an Alliance of Belief. He argued that there are certain universal values that are common to humanity and key to governance in the 21st century. Among these are freedom and justice, which must be the foundation for our way of life. Mr. Blair went on to say that these values need to be accepted as universal rather than Western, particularly by those in the Middle East. “We are in a battle of ideas,” the former Prime Minister said. “We must explain what we stand for and why, to address concerns so that we forge an alliance of conviction.” He added, “The idea that the West suppresses Muslims and Muslim culture is absurd. We must confront this myth and persuade Muslims of our acceptance of diversity.” He went on to espouse a combination of force and attraction, going beyond the minimum needs of security toward a better mutual understanding.
The next day, I heard Dr. Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State, describe a quite different theory of governance, one premised on balance of power. He suggested that as Asia is emerging as the new center of gravity, there is the potential for a 19th century system of interlocking alliances (think of Metternich’s Europe post Napoleon). The interests of the world “should be to prevent the emergence of an Asian bloc,” he said, by maintaining close connections between US, Europe and the three key nations of China, India and Japan. Dr. Kissinger did acknowledge a gap between the economic organization of the world which embraces globalization and the political organization which resists this logic in favor of preserving the status quo via protectionism and nationalism. He agreed that there are issues such as environment and energy that can only be solved on a global basis. But his basis approach is one of interaction of elites in business and government, establishing rules to be followed by others, a classic application of the pyramid of influence.
So here is the contrast between the new and old worlds on government or business management, between soft power and hard power, the multiple stakeholder model of Blair versus the realpolitik of Kissinger. A traditional approach to issues management for business is to create an alliance of interested parties who can bring special influence to bear on the legislative process, often times aimed at slowing regulation. I am reminded of the incredibly humorous section of "Thank You for Smoking" novel by Christopher Buckley, in which he describes a regular meeting of the alcohol, firearms and tobacco lobbyists, who describe themselves as the Merchants of Death. This was the period of the “inside game” when the right connections in Washington, often shaped by political contributions, helped business to shape the political agenda. In the new world of transparency and wisdom of crowds, companies have to be prepared to make their case to the outside world. There will need to be different sorts of alliances, with civil society and communities, with employees and passionate consumers. Without an informed debate, politicians will bow to the path of least resistance and will remove business’ license to operate at the first sign of problems. Our job as PR people must be to introduce the views of the non-traditional stakeholders, to sit at the policy-making table to shape outcomes not just communication.
Posted by Edelman at 8:49 AM |
Comments
Sadly, Tony B's position (much as I consider him something of a political hero) contains a natural paradox.
When he says "The idea that the West suppresses Muslims and Muslim culture is absurd", he is of course right. However, he may be blind to the fact that the Muslim world will see this merely as a Western idea, and therefore refute it out of hand.
I would love to be able to share Tony's conviction on this one - but I suspect that the realpolitik of the Muslim world (to borrow from Kissinger) would never allow Blair's vision of the political equivalent of a multiple stakeholder society to take root.
Many years ago, one of my History Tutors talked frequently about the long-term political/ psychological impact of The Koran, where it speaks to the World of Islam and the World of War. Unless these two fundamentals can be reconciled, Blair's vision will remain somewhat naive.
Posted by: Robert Phillips at April 28, 2008 3:37 AM
A very mature post. You're obviously aware of the change in thinking in our culture and how to tailor your craft to engage the new power brokers (the common man)
Robert's comment is interesting also. Muslims don't think the West dislikes them as people, rather the Islamic ideology, as a system that rivals Western secularism/capitalism is what the West is aiming their cross-hairs at. The post-colonial Muslim world naturally doesn't believe anything coming from the lips of the world super powers. There's an entrenched distrust and increased awareness that no amount of PR can wipe away.
In an age where most of the world (Muslim world included) is becoming aware of how they've been 'played' (urban colloquial connotation) for the last 100 years, it's a scary time to be a neo-colonial superpower.
Raza Imam
SoftwareSweatshop.com
Posted by: Raza Imam at April 28, 2008 5:35 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackApril 17, 2008
Local Newspapers Reboot
I spent an hour yesterday morning with Brian Tierney, former PR man, now publisher of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News. Earlier this week, at an Edelman University class, I moderated a discussion with three senior journalists, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal (a national paper), Ellis Henican of Newsday and Robert George of the NY Post. Here are a few of the most important trends:
1) Newspapers remain “the best way to get ideas across,” according to Henican. Most bloggers are linking to stories that originate in mainstream media, he added. But Henican acknowledged that “newspapers are no longer a sufficient platform for journalists who want a voice in the public conversation.” He appears on Fox (as George does on CNN and Fund on Sunday morning public affairs TV) because “people think I am a better writer when they see me on TV battling Bill O’Reilly (a conservative anchorman on Fox) “You cannot have a career on the talent side of idea-driven media without being on multiple platforms.” Fund especially likes going on radio because “you have to listen to the content; people are more likely to retain the key facts.”
2) Newspapers see themselves as offering news analysis. Fund noted that, “In almost every story that has a headline, the facts are already known. We add the interpretation. We are no longer in the Olympian objective authority role.” Mr. George suggested that this trend was “back to the future” in that 19th century American journalism was highly opinionated. “Hearst even got America into the Spanish American War,” he noted.
3) Newspapers are finding new ways to make money on the advertising side, to fill the large hole left by the demise of classified employment ads. An example is the sponsorship of the PhillyInc column, a gossipy take on business, by Citizens Bank or the Inquirer Express back page summary of the news sponsored by Commerce Bank. In both cases, these were new editorial products.
4) Publishers are following the example of their magazine brethren in developing campaigns for advertisers. An example is an upcoming promotion for Miller Beer in which the Inquirer Media Lab did the creative work, Tierney said. Advertising revenue from auto dealers, retailers, real estate and cinema is somewhat diminished from peak levels of year 2000 but not significantly so.
5) There is still large pass-along readership so that the true numbers for the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News total audience is 1.2 million (about 2.5 multiple on the 370,000 Inquirer circulation and 3 multiple on the 150,000 Daily News circulation). One important statistic to remember: 52% of Americans pick up a newspaper every day, about 70% of those over age 18, even more on Sunday (Inquirer circulation is twice as large on Sunday)
6) Within 18 months, there will be printers on the market that will allow a bound personal version of a newspaper, according to Mr. Fund. “People love the idea of choice; your newspaper, with the stories you want at the length you want them.”
7) The web versions of local newspapers are seeking to create micro-communities (Tierney is particularly excited by the potential of Philly.com, which offers content from both of his papers but also consumer generated content) around music, food and health.
This emphasizes to me that media plans should be anchored by local media. My father, Dan Edelman, recognized the power of local media by creating the media tour in the early 50s, taking the show “on the road” by booking spokespeople in markets around the US. In fact, many of the local columnists are seeking stories that are national in importance but have a local angle (note my interview with Cheryl Hall of the Dallas Morning News on the Edelman Trust Barometer from earlier this week). I would appreciate your comments as always.
Posted by Edelman at 10:39 AM |
Comments
Richard - this post is phenomenal. My hope is that newspapers continue to try meeting social media "in the middle" because things such as blogs ARE important, but not the "be all end all" that some PR professionals want them to be.
Great stuff.
Posted by: Justin P at April 18, 2008 9:22 AM
I believe that newspapers are doing the right thing by changing with the times. If they want to retain readers and make any sort of profit, they are going to have to respond to what their readers want.
I particularly like the idea of printers that will be able to print personal versions of the newspaper. If you’re supplying the reader with exactly what they want, then they’ll read your paper and not have to scan through other stories to find the one they’re looking for.
Posted by: Rachel Koontz at April 29, 2008 11:56 AM
The US and Eurpoean circulation of daily Newspapers has dropped significantly over the last years. It's vital that the news papers change with the times, but will they ever have the capacity to keep up with the fast growing online ressources or other technologies? When forecasting the future of news papers, many people are skeptic. In a couple of years, with the growing number of free news papers and online media, information might become free. With a online network that comprises more already 100 millions of bloggers, plus wikis etc, what will happen to journalists? If information becomes free, where will the revenues come from?
Thank you for a wonderful blog. As a PR-student I take a lot of interest in your publications online.
Posted by: Maria at May 3, 2008 7:23 AM
Post a comment
| TrackBackApril 8, 2008
Media Mogul Opines
I attended a star-studded breakfast this morning at New York’s Plaza Hotel where Disney CEO Bob Iger was interviewed by Ken Auletta of the New Yorker Magazine under the auspices of the Newhouse School of Journalism. Here are some of his most important comments:
1) “Windowing”—Disney will release Camp Rock, a made for TV movie featuring the Jonas Brothers on sequential evenings, first on Disney Channel, then ABC Network, ABC Family Channel and ABC.com. By contrast, Dancing With The Stars will appear first on ABC Network, then on ABC.com. Iger believes this approach, staggered release dates on cable or broadcast before digital, maximizes awareness and advertising revenue.
2) Global Markets—There is no homogenous global market, especially in film. Media companies must be creators, not just exporters, of product. Disney made an original film in Mandarin last year. There is still demand for US television product, such as Desperate Housewives, but the content needs to be created locally versus doing voice-overs in local language. He considers ABC’s most successful prime time dramas as global brands.
3) Social Networks—Disney’s experience with Club Penguin indicates that young consumers reject marketing of the site, preferring to spread the word themselves, so they feel ownership in the property. “They have a visceral reaction in being marketed to; we have to constantly upgrade and improve the site based on consumer feedback,” he said.
4) Multiple Sources of Information—Access to multiple sources will change the way stories are told. Today, ideal skills are creativity, technology (in presentation and on platform) and globalization. We need to have the artist with a great idea push the technology people to present the story better (and vice versa).
5) Local News Drives Differentiation—The key to success for a local broadcast station is news. News people are in control of their own destiny. They need to contend with new consumer demands on access from all platforms and speed to market.
6) Simplicity—Iger spent time describing a successful consumer model (iTunes) and then was frank about the failure of the ESPN phone. He said that educated sales people are an often overlooked aspect of the value chain—a brand can pull you into the store but there has to be magic at the moment of purchase.
7) Brands—There are two brands at his company: Disney and ESPN. While ABC is a destination, the ABC brand doesn’t drive behavior. Its properties, such as Lost or ABC News are what determine viewership.
For the PR profession I think Bob’s observations means that we need to have big ideas that can work globally, but must emphasize local content and connection. We should be conscious of the trend toward “repurposing” of information across platforms, by appending video and offering opportunities for consumer generated content. We should be very mindful of the reticence of young consumers to accept marketing, and our programs need to have room for spontaneity and innovation based on listening and feedback. Finally, we must have substance in our content—Iger’s point about local news being the differentiator can be extrapolated to our business. I look forward to your comments.
Posted by Edelman at 3:25 PM |
Comments
While I admire a number of things that Disney has done recently, I think Bob needs to take a closer look at the application of his ideas.
First, distribution/windowing. Humans are creatures of habit and in these time crunched times we look for the fastest way to get what we want. While the varied windowing approach might help with research, it will most likely confuse his audience and it does not sound simple. He also needs to focus more on the Internet, cell phones and ipods.
Brands, what about EXPN and ESPN2. These are two brands that I am aware of because of my business(I am sure there are more). They are diluting the ESPN brand already. I do like the EXPN idea, but maybe it should include other edgy sports not currently considered "action sports"
Simplicity, Bob really needs to spend some time on his web site and then comeback and tell us about simplicity. I represent one of the X Games Gold athletes and host a motorcycle internet radio show. Trying to get valuable media information from their site to help promote the various X Games properties and sports is painful at best. The site needs some major help, although it looks great - functionality is not even close to where it needs to be. I did watch some of the events on ESPN this past weekend, but that is over - now what. There was so much opportunity to create traffic to the site pre and post the event. That is the sweet spot for Disney. I do give them huge accolades for creating the best property in action sports.
Posted by: Ed Kuhlenkamp at April 16, 2008 10:07 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackApril 4, 2008
Hard Truths
I attended a fascinating briefing on Energy Future 2050 on Monday night at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer led the discussion (Disclosure – Shell is an Edelman client).
Key points:
There are three hard truths about energy:
a) energy demand in world will double by 2050 due to 50% population growth and rise in incomes so many more people can afford to drive
b) supply of energy cannot meet that demand based on conventional oil and gas alone—will need renewables, nuclear etc—partly because the Easy to Get Oil is shrinking as percentage of total
c) huge issue of CO2—likely to see rise in acceptable standard to 450-550 parts per million
There are two possible scenarios:
First is every man for himself (actually every government for itself). There will be a surge in demand for coal, which fills the supply gap but causes greenhouse gas emissions to rise. We will see second generation bio-fuels which don’t compete with food sources and more centralized solar/wind power generation.
Second is global rules of the game. A coalition of business, NGOs and government will make change together, as in California. Incentives are introduced for broader use of wind/solar; carbon capture and storage comes to scale. CO2 emissions are priced so business can have certainty. Forty percent of cars will be powered by electricity and the other 60% will have much higher miles per gallon.
On specific forms of alternative energy:
1) Second generation bio-fuels can be used for transport. They are based on nonfood parts of plants such as stems, first generation bio-fuels have driven up the price of foodstuffs
2) Hydrogen fuel cells can power cars but there is perceived safety risk
3) Heavy oil and shale—huge reserves but big CO2 problems in production
On hydrocarbons:
1) Need carbon tax to raise price of gasoline. Note that European cars are 40% more fuel efficient than American cars because gasoline costs twice as much
2) Coal and nuclear are the “balancing fuels”, not oil and gas. This means we can create supply quickly but there are side effects with each of these options
3) Nuclear will decline as percentage of total energy production, because so many plants built 20 years ago will be decommissioned. The uranium mining and disposal system for waste must be rebuilt, while new construction of plants must accelerate
4) Need cap and trade system in the US to cut emissions; also congestion pricing in cities
5) Need efficiency standards on buildings, cars and appliances to make sure we are progressing on learning curve to use less energy
Trade-offs need to be made explicit for all parties; there will be no free lunch and the status quo is not acceptable given climate change and fast-rising price of energy. There is a critical role for public relations in this evolving market place. As a New York City resident, I have been pleasantly surprised by the turn in public opinion on congestion pricing, so that 70% of city residents are now in favor of the $8 tariff for driving in the central business district. This was achieved through intensive media relations and a stark ad campaign. There were also forums for consumer input, including town hall meetings or via the web on Campaign for New York’s website. Behavior change will not come with price incentives alone; there must be an understanding of the benefits to all of us.
I look forward to your comments.
Posted by Edelman at 9:54 AM |
Comments
It will be interesting to see if the trade-offs reach the point that requires a reduction of the status-quo in terms of consumption. For example, will the average American accept driving less miles or use less power/heat in their homes? Or will the reality be that innovation will always produce greater efficiency allowing consumption to rise, or at least remain stable?
Posted by: Steve Shannon at April 10, 2008 12:38 PM
I would recommend re-reading Amory Lovins since the first tool is conservation, higher energy efficiency. There is also a need to disconnect "progress" with more energy consumed/wasted. I think it would be a mistake to mechanically imagine that the growing consumption in developing nations will be modeled after the wasteful US way. We have reached our ecological limits as far as the 'traditional energy sources" (coal, oil) are concerned. I bet the changes will not come from today's main players as they are too settled in their old ways: one of the "best" example of that has been the refusal of GM and Ford to continue producing electrical cars after the Californian regulation were lifted (because of their lobbying). They did shot themselves (and still are). It is pathetic to read the ads by GM still claiming they did not kill their electric car (although they now feel obliged to address the issue). About Ford, look at the Th!nk car, ie Ford's electric car that was sold to Norwegian investors and is now on its way back to the US.
And on and on...On the other hand the French EDF just took a participation in Nanosolar. Everything solar is part of the solution but there are many other ecological challenges ahead like the lack of potable water (look at the drought in Spain for instance)...
Posted by: Philippe Boucher at April 26, 2008 2:09 PM
Of course the energy "crisis" and the global warming reality remain on the front of the news. One month later I find interesting the move by the Rockefeller family to present motions at the forthcoming Exxon's general assembly to pressure the management to change course about "alternative energies".
Also interesting this article about General Motors trying to pretend it is now Green Motors but without much success... I am quite appalled by all those ads where they hawk their new "green SUV" while when you read the very fine print it says they are not really available now. I wonder who their ad agency is and who they think they can lure that way? Will they ever learn?
Here is the link to the article about wagoner's presentation:
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/commentary/35800
Posted by: Philippe Boucher at May 5, 2008 11:59 AM