« November 2008 | Main | January 2009 »
December 18, 2008
The Real HBS Story
I was one of the Harvard Business School graduates interviewed by CNBC for its special one hour documentary on the 100th anniversary of the "West Point of Capitalism." Here is a link to excerpts for your viewing pleasure (and apologies for the hairstyles in ’78).
I was beyond surprised to be included, along side business luminaries such as Jamie Dimon, Jeff Immelt, Steve Schwarzman and Meg Whitman. I suppose I represented the “little people”--the entrepreneurs and family business owners who attended the institution. Here is the back story on my life and times at the school.
If Harvard College was “the life of the mind,” Harvard Business School was “Survivor.” On our first day of class, we were informed that up to ten percent of each 80 person section would “hit the screen,” meaning flunk out. Put eighty highly motivated rats in a cage with a limited amount of food and you get an idea of why Darwin was right about survival of the fittest. There were grizzled (that is to say 32 year old) Viet Nam veterans who had landed jets on carriers or been on PT boats patrolling the Mekong River. There were former bankers from two year internship programs, trained accountants and a few fresh faced college graduates who had come without work experience (like me).
Each day there were three cases to be prepared, each requiring 90 minutes to two hours of study. Class discussion began with one poor soul called upon to open the proceedings, to “lay out the case.” Then the feeding frenzy began, with critiques pouring in from all sides, some eloquent, others bit contributions that were “air time” to register class participation with the professor. The case method was fantastic for marketing, finance and HR but nearly impossible for accounting and managerial economics because you left class even more bewildered than when you arrived. You met each night with your study group of six section mates to discuss the cases for the next day. Every other Friday, a WOC (written and oral communication) was due at midnight in a post office box.
Manifestations of stress were evident by mid-October. My closest friends and I took to playing basketball at all hours, breaking into the gym after submitting our WOC then competing until 2:30 AM. My accounting professor, called me into his office in early November after a miserable mid-term exam, to tell me that I should prepare to hit the screen.
Somehow, I found new reserves of willpower and intelligence. It began to make sense, or at least enough sense to get passing grades. I learned to minimize transaction time, eating quickly, having fewer friendly debates over lunch about politics or love life. Then in January came the gong. For those of you too young to remember, Chuck Barris created The Gong Show in the 70s, with amateur entertainers performing in front of a live audience. The keeper of the gong used his weapon when the crowd turned against the performer. Jim Riehl, my section mate, brought a gong to class and installed it along side his seat on the top row of the classroom. From that moment onward, windy and shallow contributors were “gonged,” to the delight of the class and the teachers alike. It was the comic relief needed to get us through the first year.
So what did I get out of my two years at HBS? The huge work load forces you to prioritize; the continued pressure to perform gives you an inner calm. Nothing that you confront in your life, whether walk outs by senior staff, prostate cancer or client defections, is unmanageable. You gather facts, you have a strategy, you execute. You learn to get up after getting knocked down. You realize that you have to rely on a team because nobody can do this much work on his own. You recognize personality types, those you can trust and those who will turn out to be totally self-serving or duplicitous. Like the Marine Corps, if the experience doesn’t kill you, it makes you better. For this I am eternally grateful…but I still periodically wake up in a cold sweat from a bad dream, that I am called upon to open the case in cost accounting and cannot explain how to maximize production from the coffee roaster…
Posted by Edelman at 3:40 PM |
Comments
Thanks for sharing. I was excited to see you on that show because I've done a little work for Rick Murray and Ming Yee. Plus I'm in Chicago so it was cool seeing you.
The last paragraph of this post says it all. I'm a 27 year old entrepreneur trying to grow my small consulting firm, and I am faced with a ton of challenges, from finding new clients, recovering from losing big ones, managing employees leaving with little/no notice, to simply managing cashflow so I can support my family.
At times tumultuous, I find peace in my trial by fire. I'm learning a lot about myself and I see a light at the end of the tunnel. There's a lot of potential and see this tough period as the "Dip" that Seth Godin talks about. It's hard, and it's a lot of work, but I'm grateful for it.
Raza Imam
http://SoftwareSweatshop.com
Posted by: Raza Imam at December 30, 2008 1:58 PM
Richard, coincidentally I just emailed you on this very CNBC appearance. I was channel surfing and whose face appeared but yours.
I must admit I like the current hairstyle much better, and I'm thrilled that a PR pro such as yourself is considered a peer to the Jeff Immelt's and Meg Whitman's of the world. It's about time.
It was a delightful interview and I'm glad I happened upon it.
Happy 2009 to all,
Pam
Posted by: Pam Miller at January 2, 2009 12:13 AM
Post a comment
| TrackBackDecember 11, 2008
Fight the Good Fight
All of us on the PR agency side are anxious about the dire forecasts coming out of the annual UBS conference this week. Advertising spending in the US is expected to decline of 3% in 2008, and up to 6% in 2009. Rather than wring our hands, let’s create business value for clients and win more than our customary share of the 2009 budgets, because PR is best suited to the time. Here is some advice on how to fight against traditional and new competitors.
The most important issue of the day is the precipitous decline in trust in business. The massive government intervention to stabilize financial and industrial concerns has raised new issues of public accountability and fairness. The collapse in the past year of industrial and financial service icons is undermining business’ license to operate. The calls for limits on executive pay and new oversight power for appointed and elected officials as conditions of government bailout funding indicates severe popular disenchantment. This is a classic PR assignment; rebuilding credibility.
There can no longer be separation of corporate reputation and brand. Citizens funding bailouts, investors, employees and regulators now expect ‘mutual social responsibility. Even in a recession, consumers show a preference for brands with social purpose. We need to help clients create a new reality that enables them to make money while addressing broader needs of society. To use a line I coined a few years ago, “You have to be it, you cannot buy it.” This idea of responsible capitalism is central to the business model at Starbucks (disclosure: Edelman client).
We are no longer the tail on the marketing dog. We are now involved in developing strategy by bringing perspectives from non-traditional stakeholders (NGOs) or establishing scientific credentials for brand’s. The traditional advertising-agency controlled marketing model is wearing thin; ads are increasingly ignored or not believed. We uniquely create the runway of credibility for the advertising and digital plane to take off. At a recent meeting, the marketing team at Dannon (disclosure: Edelman client) said our work for Activia yogurt was much more important than advertising in establishing the brand proposition.
We are competing for new areas of client spend. We are in the entertainment business, bringing clients such as Wrigley, together with the TV program The Biggest Loser, as part of program including web, on premise and classic publicity. We are using digital tools for a landmark shareholder fairness “proxy fight” in Japan. We created excitement for a new Dove product collection launched via a partnership with MTV. (disclosure: these three are Edelman clients).
The dispersion of audience and authority makes it incumbent on companies to inform conversations. We are going where the communities meet on their terms, from mainstream media web sites to new influencers operating in niches. Our approach is premised on people opting-in. Butterball (an Edelman client, who in 1981 created one of first national, toll-free consumer help lines),this year engaged by partnering with Bravo’s “Top Chef,” where chef’testants cooked with Butterballs, and enabled people who text the word “TURKEY” from mobile phone to get tips on cooking turkeys. We also maintained a twitter roll, hosted live web chats, engaged with bloggers, then provided how-to videos, new recipes, cooking calculators on butterball.com.
Paul Seaman, in yesterday morning’s Wall Street Journal: Europe, opines “the PR industry has to help business convey its new, blunter message.” He goes on to say that “PR became part of the problem. We were the froth on a frothy time, a party to the trivialization of business…boom-time PR loved the attempt by boom-business to be loved by everyone. But being loved isn’t a successful business strategy.” He uses the Barclay’s Bank rejection of UK Government financing as evidence of “leadership and boldness…the public wants to hear from genuinely knowledgeable and thoughtful businesspeople.” While I disagree with his characterization of CSR and alignment with stakeholders as “double speak and euphemism,” he is right in suggesting that straight talk will work best at this time. If we are entrusted with the primary responsibility for building brands or restoring corporate reputation, we have to show courage and conviction, with content that is accurate and authentic. Let’s fight the good fight because now is our time.
Posted by Edelman at 1:56 PM |
Comments
Mr. Edelman:
You write that "straight talk will work best at this time." Are there times when straight talk is not the best policy?
I'll check back here for your answer.
Thank you.
Carla R.
Posted by: CARLA R. at December 11, 2008 9:08 PM
As always, I'm excited to see companies take strides in cultivating and demonstrating the ideal meaning of public relations. At face value, it’s really about asking ourselves “How will we relate to the public?” and then getting down in the trenches, with them, to make it happen. It also seems that some textbook definitions and ideals I've learned about public relations are becoming more of a reality. That ideal entails much of what you speak of Richard -- to simply say it, serving as a strategic planning and management function, being (tactfully) candid, and including the publics we serve in our strategies. It seems we are successfully grasping the role to serve as the ethical conscience ... convincing fellow organizational leaders to do the right thing to get positive returns (of any type for that matter). Anyone who is passionate about public relations should be excited to be in an era of so much change and openness to creativity. I certainly know I am.
Posted by: Mark Taylor II at December 12, 2008 4:52 AM
Carla,
Straight talk is always best, even more so when there are major credibility issues for business.
Thanks for reading,
Richard Edelman
Posted by: Richard Edelman at December 12, 2008 12:32 PM
Richard,
I agree to your philosophy that "straight talk" is always best, especially with regard to today's markets. Obviously AIG has not taken to this philosophy especially with regard to their corporate bonus structure. I believe, even with the average economic recession lasting 13 months, we will see a general mistrust in AIG and their business practices for years to come. What do you believe their best course of action could/should be to change the many negative perceptions of their business model? The next few years are going to be very interesting for AIG executives! Thank you for your response.
Bryan Whitlock
Chief Creative Officer
Emergent PR
Posted by: Bryan Whitlock at December 17, 2008 9:36 AM
Bryan,
Lay out a bonus structure, then explain the rationale. Provide comparables from the industry. Make sure there is clarity on pay for performance.
Thanks for reading,
Richard
Posted by: Richard Edelman at December 18, 2008 5:19 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackDecember 2, 2008
Google and PR; Adapt to the New Reality
My friend and colleague, Steve Rubel and I had a discussion two weeks ago about adapting our work product to a world in which search is the primary port of entry. An increasing number of journalists and other people access their web-based e-mail and news readers via search applications. We agreed we must make the content easier to find, with natural language queries (which are high ranked terms on Google) that search optimize all materials-- including e-mails, press releases, fact sheets, media rooms—thereby helping journalists and bloggers to find relevant facts when they are doing an article. This is a pull model as opposed to our present exclusive reliance on a push model of pitching story ideas. We agreed that we need to create high quality content that is regularly discussed, remixed and linked to, using a human tone and aiming to add value to conversations taking place anyway.
With these thoughts swirling in my mind, I ran into Jeff Levick, Vice President of Industry Development and Marketing, Americas for Google at the Ad Council Dinner. We chatted for a few minutes, and he agreed to visit an Edelman Executive Committee meeting last week in Chicago. Here are a few of his observations:
1) Nowadays companies could care less about which firm (PR vs advertising vs direct) provides what function—whichever has the idea and ability to execute can get the order. This is a real opportunity for PR firms.
2) Change how we are compensated. He suggested we consider experimenting with performance based models that deliver “eyeballs” and sales, which are increasingly popular with ad agencies. We often do not get credit for the value we provide.
3) PR firms should bid for sponsored keywords. This does not bias the information, if there is value in the information. I confirmed this with Jeff Jarvis and his view is that “it is fine for PR firms to bid for keywords initially to prime the pump of directing people to your content.”
4) Create a network effect for content. Allow others to adapt and share what you post on a corporate site. We need to make sure clients’ content is up on YouTube because this very act says that “we participate in your world.”
5) Google’s role is distribution and delivery, not content. The best programs come from strategy sessions between the client, Google and the agency (and yes that means PR firms—but Levick says that is all too infrequent at present). We need to create programs that address the “whole mindset,” to deliver what people want today.
6) “Mobile is like China”, in terms of business opportunity. Levick encouraged us to experiment with the Android platform. One example is scanning the UPC of a product, then learning about its supply chain or reading product reviews on the cell phone.
So there it is PR folks, the license to operate writ large. It is time for us to step up. We need to provide substantive content that can become point of reference in discussion. We can produce entertaining video to celebrate Wonderbra’s 10th anniversary that became the number two on UK’s YouTube for a week this fall. We can associate brands with important causes; one example is Brita’s Pledge to reduce water bottle waste. I would like to post other cases—please send them along.
Posted by Edelman at 2:06 PM |
Comments
Spot-on Richard. This post made me feel a lot better about my own musings re: the future of the PR industry: http://is.gd/9Zfi ...
One of my commenters said it pretty well: PR has been about media relations; with the advent of Social Media, now PR is becoming PUBLIC Relations in a truer, broader, longer-lasting sense.
Posted by: Todd Defren at December 3, 2008 4:13 PM
Over this past summer, I interned under the Manager of Communications at Novo Nordisk Canada and found that due to the many restrictions with advertising their suite of client care products and devices (for diabetics) they often approached organizations that supported the cause and worked hand and hand with them to build awareness that way. Just last month they joined forces with the Canadian Diabetes Foundation and the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation for Research to host a "Blue-La Hoop Challenge" in support of World Diabetes Day (Nov.14)
(http://www.facebook.com/pages/World-Diabetes-Day-Canada/34367875754?ref=ts). Would this be an example of what you spoke about?
Secondly, do you feel associating brands with important causes (where possible), aka CSR, is the new wave of PR and getting one's brand out there (along with using new media like YouTube, and popular keyword searches)?
Posted by: Alana DaSilva at December 3, 2008 11:31 PM
Great post. Our agency has pondered the question of how to measure the value of the PR that doesn't necessarily produce results in ink. And, as we move on to using social media to build on our capacities and the services we offer, we face the challenge of helping clients understand that the those they want to reach out to can be reached by new means which they may not be familiar with.
What is a good service that offers online/social media stats and other metrics that can help us paint the picture?
PR people do more work today than ever before because we have to search for opportunities that exist in a new universe that is overwhelming in terms of size and content.
Non-profits and social causes are perfect candidates. They need to raise as much awareness as possible, gain the attention from niche communities who are ready to care and act and they benefit free resources. The time for philanthropy and community is definitely now.
Posted by: Andi Narvaez at December 4, 2008 5:27 PM
Alana,
Yes, I believe in association with important causes. This is smart for companies because they can do well and do good at same time.
Thanks for commenting,
Richard
Posted by: Richard Edelman at December 5, 2008 10:12 AM
The new reality, a connected world of consumers who have embraced social media, gives us many opportunities to develop and strengthen brand relationships. The multitude of channels and communities should excite anyone eager to showcase and share their client initiatives with their target audiences. The “network effect” you mentioned has never been more important in a society of timeshifters and screenjumpers. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recognition of this interconnected yet divergent landscape, companies should develop engagement strategies that allow consumers to participate at their discretion, while also generating creative platforms that encourage discussion. The marketing communications team at Kia (a Zeno Group client) recognizes the importance of creating a fun, two-way dialogue with its customers and partners, rather than a static campaign built on disruption. Kia kickstarted a conversation about its new KOUP at a New York Auto Show event with a behind-the-scenes video tour (http://bit.ly/Z7vj) and a Van’s partnership/giveaway that still has party guests and Kia fans submitting their shoe sizes today. At the recent Los Angeles Auto Show, the launch of the Kia Soul included a new opt-in mobile Web site for show attendees, as well as a visually rich Web site (http://www.kiasoul.com) promoting the sharing of Soul-inspired art. The photos, videos and passion behind Kia vehicles are shared online and distributed where consumers want them, whether it’s YouTube (http://bit.ly/VqpN), the Kia BUZZ blog (http://kia-buzz.com) or mobile phones. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kia understands the new reality of multiple screens (computer, television and mobile) and recently partnered with social-networking site imeem to be the first brand (http://www.clickz.com/3631823) on its mobile advertising platform for Google’s Android operating system. There’s only one phone (G1) and one network (T-Mobile) that supports Android today; but as you highlighted, and as Kia strives to do daily, it’s important to provide the content that becomes a “point of reference in discussion.” Companies and communicators who understand this reality are fully exploring all conversation points to drive new levels of brand engagement and excitement. For those still on the side of the road, watch your competition go by in the fast lane.
Posted by: Nick Mendoza, Zeno Group LA at December 5, 2008 7:06 PM
As a graduating public relations student reviewing the blog and comments, I must wonder if most professionals in our industry have truly garnered an understanding of relating to the public. Of course, it is our jobs to provide strategies and tactics to drive business, but to truly excel at that, I think we should focus on TRULY relating to the people we seek business from. As Alana suggested, and Richard Edelman confirmed, CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) is the ideal way to do this. I'm glad to see that executives have decided to embed language in their publicity materials that would appeal to journalists (and quite possible, the average person). Based on journalism experience, I can confidently state that there's no better way to get the attention you seek than by using words that are powerful, yet easily understood by those who have nothing to do with our (public relations) profession. As I look on my military background, the acronym, K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) is an ideal and effective way to reach the general public. One of our basic tenets in public relations is to understand our audience. By thinking from this perspective FIRST and then channeling such needs/wants of the public/consumers to match our goals and objectives it will ultimately drive the action/profits we seek. Obama's victory is a lesson to us all, regardless of political affiliation, that everyday people are inspired by leaders who demonstrate genuine care about them. This recession is also teaching us a lesson ... it's that consumers won't buy unless they are motivated and see the value of return on THEIR investment. We should keep that in mind, as businesses would not -- and will not -- be here if the public/consumers have no interest in our clients or their products.
Posted by: Mark Taylor II at December 6, 2008 3:42 AM
Richard
Thanks for your post - I wonder if bidding for sponsored key words won't have the unintended consequence of fueling dis-trust of PR people. I think of the accepted code of conduct for wikipedia posts, and the confines put on PR people. Similar to the wikipedia situation, while it is clearly possible (and likely) that the majority of people would conduct themselves ethically around key word bidding, even the possibility for abuse by a few could cast doubt on everyone and turn a reputation building tactic into a potential line of attack.
What do you think? Is there a way in which we might provide a level of voluntary transparency around bidding efforts that would mitigate a premise for criticism?
Posted by: Chris Deri at December 7, 2008 4:20 PM
Richard, re your point:
"We need to make sure clients’ content is up on YouTube because this very act says that “we participate in your world.”
I don't completely agree. I regard YouTube as a new media forum with an indefinable (yet quixotically identifiable) editorial style. Uploading every piece of corporate content there is akin to spamming a (heritage media) editorial desk. I think real PR value is its instinct re understanding editorial relevance.
Gerry
Posted by: Gerry at December 7, 2008 10:11 PM
Gerry,
I want companies to post relevant content on YouTube, not all content. The reality is that some will go to corporate web sites, others prefer to go to more public sites.
Thanks for reading my blog,
Richard
Posted by: Richard Edelman at December 8, 2008 3:04 PM
I have been fortunate enough to intern both in the United States and in Asia (Hong Kong, specifically). Do you think the "companies with a cause" theme is just as prevalent abroad in China? When I was over there, it was something that our office tried to advocate for our clients; however, it definitely didn't have the same effect as it does in the Western world. I believe that CSR is a great trend that will remain constant for a while because social issues are of interest to more and more (esp. with President-elect Obama's emphasis). Do you think the same will hold true for the Far East in the future?
Posted by: Joy Yoo at December 9, 2008 12:54 PM
Richard:
Since you asked for it, i offer another example of associating a brand with causes. The example that you gave as to Brita’s Pledge to reduce water bottle waste (a product which our agency first introduced in the early 90s into the Southern California market) triggered thoughts about another more recent campaign for Eaturna’s chef-created, prepared food products. We developed a “Partnership for Healthy Neighborhoods” geared to promoting healthy eating. We created an informational and sampling box with an Eaturna branded sleeve replete with core messages, food samplers, menu options, a calorie food comparison, plus healthy tips. With it, came a neighborhood pledge where each individual recipient was asked to sign the pledge, thereby making a commitment to “promote healthy eating."
I agree with you. We should all do more of this. The community engagement was amazing.
Posted by: Noemi Pollack at December 9, 2008 4:16 PM
Great points!
For those of us that marketing mainly online, we know there are inexpensive and effective ways to get our messages "out there" in the online world.
Print media is becoming obsolete. What we still need is someone that has the creativity to put together a comprehensive and cohesive campaign that penetrates all media with our message.
Posted by: Craig Klein at December 15, 2008 2:44 PM
I agree with almost everything here, but the pay-per-click purchasing is a very dangerous road: most PR firms should be concentrating on methods of establishing good relevant content distribution via SEO rather than waste high-dollar budgets on PPC and short-term keyword purchases.
It is great to hear that a larger firm like Edelman has a top-down acceptance on these issues, as there are many smaller firms who are not only hesitant- but resistant to embrace the media change. Groups like myragan.com show how behind most PR professionals are in terms of tracking the latest changes for a client.
Posted by: Barry Hurd at December 29, 2008 5:05 PM