« February 2009 | Main | April 2009 »
March 31, 2009
Why I Told My Story
Today’s Wall Street Journal has an extensive article on prostate cancer. I decided to speak to the reporter at length about my experience with the disease for the following reasons:
First, the recent release of two studies criticizing the PSA testing protocol, suggesting that there is over-treatment of the condition, will lead many men to do what they do best; ignore the warning signs until it is too late. It may indeed be scientifically accurate to posit that half of prostate cancers are indolent and do not require intervention. But that leaves the other half, that left untended, can metastasize into bone or other more serious forms of cancer.
Second, there is now technology that can help men take better decisions about treatment. The MRI guided biopsy is a far superior means of establishing the extent and virulence of the disease. This diagnostic methodology is also the key to future treatment modalities such as ablation or freezing of only the affected area of the prostate.
Third, it is important for men to realize that the treatment options will not affect their quality of life in the long run. The dreaded side effects, from impotence to incontinence, are far over-stated. With the advent of nerve-sparing surgery and availability of Viagra, your sex life will be fine (for a middle-aged person, in any case). Between Kegel exercises and knowledge of liquid consumption tolerance, incontinence is only a short-term issue.
Fourth, men must take control of their health management. Doctors are not infallible. In fact, the first diagnosis in my case seemed to be wrong and I decided to pursue other advice. I found that each doctor advocated for his/her specialty. The Internet is full of conflicting information. The best counsel can come from friends and peers who have been through the process.
Fifth, top executives owe their colleagues and customers a full explanation of the extent of disease and steps being taken to manage the problem. I alerted my senior Edelman team via individual calls the week before my procedure. I sent an all staff note once I was out of surgery to inform them of my condition, and the action I took to remedy the malady. I also blogged publically (dated September 17, 2008 entitled, "The Scimitar Falls; I’m Walking On") because I did not want speculation nor any confusion around the firm.
Sixth, I have much to be grateful for, especially my zero PSA at the six-month mark following surgery. I had excellent treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital. Dr. Peter Scardino and his team are the ultimate professionals, committed to educating patients, so they make better decisions. Dr. Peter Pinto, at the National Cancer Institute, recognized the risk in a patient with a fast-rising PSA and found my cancer through MRI biopsy. Dr. Faina Shtern of the AdMeTech Foundation (disclosure: a client) is committed to educating doctors and men like me about the critical role of advanced diagnostic imaging such as MRI in the early detection and minimally invasive treatment of prostate cancer, in the same way the mammogram has helped women with breast cancer. I admire her tireless pursuit of further development of the “man-o-gram” and related increase of US Government and private funding for public education and research.
I hope that today’s article helps men recognize that the best way forward is active investigation of their disease, not benign neglect that can lead to a more systemic problem. I would appreciate your own stories to share with the community.
Posted by Edelman at 5:38 AM |
Comments
Richard is so very correct in his assessment of the conflicting and confusing information on the internet. Each doctor advocates for his/her industry (they are indeed in business to make money) making it extremely difficult to pick an optimum solution for me. Last Tuesday, 3/24/09, I received word that my biopsy had comeback positive for cancer with a Gleason score of 6. A rising PSA (3.0 to 5.7 in 13 months) alerted us to the potential for cancer. From what I know so far, that makes me eligible for any one of the treatment options offered by each of the different disciplines. I'm a CPA (in the last days of tax season) and I'm trained in sorting and analyzing data without emotional attachment, but uncovering how each medical specialty group advocates for their approach in an honest and helpful manner is comforting, but does nothing to assist in weighing and contrasting the different available options. Additionally, there is often some critical tidbit of information that gets left out (and I do believe the omission is unintentional) that has a direct bearing on my specific set of circumstances. Equally confounding are the statistics on cure rates for each approach, it makes me recall a statistics professor I had in college who would say, "Statistics are like a woman of ill repute, the closer you get, the more you can make her do." . . . This industry has an awful lot of statistics. . . Be cautious!
Posted by: Parks T. at March 31, 2009 9:22 AM
As A Cancer Survivor I thank you !
Posted by: marshal sandler at March 31, 2009 10:41 AM
I'm glad to hear you are ok. I suffered a small stroke just 6 months ago (100% fine) and found many of the things you said to be true, regardless of the disease.
Posted by: Adam Dictrow at March 31, 2009 11:09 AM
A great column. You may want to enter something on the ongoing NY Times discussion --- you will find an ongoing "battle". My experience was something like yours, 12 years ago (at age 57), and with a home town Urologist with a good reputation. My wife and I discussed the various options, and she strongly insisted on doing what I could to save my life and we would deal with the rest afterwards. I'm certainly glad I didn't read the recent articles and forgo PSA testing. There is a similar attack on screening for breast cancer. I can only assume the critics of screening have concluded that they are in the 'other half" and the heck with us, and I hope they are right that they never have to deal with cancer but would strongly advise them to have the screens, study the data, meet the Dr's and take their best shot.
Posted by: Robert L Smith at March 31, 2009 2:46 PM
YOU the man, Richard (with or without Viagara). My hat's off to you for sharing your story, and for posting this rationale for "going public." My past two annual checkups have included a PSA test, though I've been wondering for even longer what action I'd take if the numbers were concerning. That day hasn't arrived yet, but my appreciation to you (and Melinda) for enlightening us benign-neglect-inclined men to MRI-guided biopsies and biomarkers under study. Yes, YOU the man, even without the gland.
Wishing you good health for decades to come,
Jed
Posted by: Jed Weiner at March 31, 2009 5:56 PM
That's great to share your experiences with the community and wish you a great recovery, an ex-EDELMAN staff
Posted by: Leslie at March 31, 2009 11:50 PM
I find your posting moving on two distinct levels. First, the issue of addressing prostate cancer and elucidating approaches to the condition are important for men to know - particularly coming from an executive. Second, there appears to be a PR issue addressed as well: whether executives should be transparent about their health. Considering other instances where executives underwent invasive surgery or discovered unfortunate medical circumstances, those companies' executives who chose not to be transparent about their health found their companies receiving at least somewhat elevated organizational scrutiny. Your transparency on the issue is a testament to Edelman's dedication to transparency and serves as a prime example of why health at an executive level might not always be something to keep quiet.
While I am fortunate enough not to have any experience with prostate cancer, I hope those who find themselves battling it realize the support in their communities and that they find comfort in that support. I also hope that men will follow your recommendations to actively investigate the disease and take action quickly to minimize damage.
Thank you for the posting, I've enjoyed reading it.
Posted by: Gentry Lassiter at April 1, 2009 12:48 AM
Hi Rick - very impressed and honored that you choose to tell your story. It makes a difference to have a role model, a leader - especially in communications! - to show other men and families how to cope and make difficult decisions. I am especially appreciate of the leap you took -- I am BRCA1 positive, and had a double mastectomy, oophorectomies etc back in 2000 -- without a diagnosis of cancer -- just to protect myself from developing any disease. Medicine is full of ambiguities and hard choices - but moving forward, making the best of available tools is the right decision. My hat's off to you and your family. Best of luck and good health!
Posted by: Diane Atwood at April 1, 2009 8:02 AM
Richard, I always enjoy stopping by to read your latest perspective of the PR industry, life, the world at large. Thanks for continuing to share your story; hopefully it will encourage more men to be pro-active about their health. Continued best wishes to you.
Posted by: Michele Nix at April 2, 2009 6:48 PM
Richard-
On a personal note, I wanted to thank you for sharing your story. A few years ago, my father was diagnosed with prostate cancer and I worked closely with him to navigate the sea of treatment options and options for avoiding a barbaric surgery. He ended up going the proton radiation therapy route which has proven effective since the treatment – with little to no lingering side effects.
Warmly,
JP
JP Schuerman
Posted by: JP Schuerman at April 6, 2009 9:10 AM
Post a comment
| TrackBackMarch 27, 2009
Gettysburg; How Public-Private Partnership Can Succeed
I have been obsessed with the Civil War since I was six years old, when the nation celebrated the 100th anniversary of the conflict. I grew up four blocks from a gigantic statue of Abraham Lincoln that overlooks the Chicago Historical Society. I passed the statue on the way to school and every time I went to Lincoln Park to play football or baseball. My favorite book was a catalogue of Civil War battles, with troop movements and photos of generals. So perhaps it was destiny but four years ago I joined the board of the Gettysburg National Battlefield Foundation, which was given the mandate by the National Park Service to raise funds and build a new museum. I was unable to attend the official opening of the facility in September but took a day this week to visit. It is everything one could have hoped for, in identifying the causes of the war, describing the progress of the four year conflict, then the uncomfortable aftermath in which African-Americans were gradually deprived of rights as Reconstruction proceeded. The museum is really a tribute to the stubborn determination of two men, Gabor Boritt and Bob Kinsley who believed that the two million visitors to the park each year deserved more than a 50s style map of the battlefield and scattered memorabilia.
Gettysburg Museum and Visitor Center
I had dinner the night before my museum visit with Professor Boritt, the director of the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College. Professor Boritt is a Lincoln scholar, often-published and frequently cited as a source on the former President. He spoke eloquently of the Gettysburg Address, how Lincoln in discussing a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” was describing America not as it was but what it should always aspire to be. “He had to tell his constituents the hard truth, that the fighting needed to go on. But he laid out a vision of a new type of freedom, an America worth fighting to create,” said Professor Boritt. “The meaning of the Civil War goes well beyond the conflict; it was a choice of economic system and method of governance.” He went on to talk about his own story, an emigrant from Hungary, having survived the Nazi occupation of his home town, Budapest, then the Russian post-war domination. “The 1956 democracy movement was crushed by Russian tanks; my father told me it was time to leave for America. I took a train to the border, then walked across at night, avoiding the guards. I was sent to the US by the International Rescue Committee, which got me a scholarship to Yankton College in South Dakota. I spoke no English but the people were so kind. I came across a book of Lincoln’s speeches and that was my real introduction to the language.” Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a frequent visitor to Gettysburg, is quoted as saying, “Isn’t it so ironic that it has been a foreign-born man who has to explain the true meaning of the Civil War to Americans.”
The following morning, I saw Bob Kinsley, chairman of the Museum board of directors and owner of a successful private construction company. He told me that he was “hooked by Professor Boritt’s vision of a museum, how it could explain the broader implications of the War to its own citizens and foreign visitors alike.” Kinsley told me that the funding for the facility ultimately came 1/3 from government (federal and state) and 2/3 from the private sector. Major companies such as Boeing and Ford contributed substantial sums to a continuing education center and movie theater. Philanthropists such as Richard Gilder and Lew Lehrman gave substantial sums. We agreed that we were fortunate to have finished the project in September, 2008, given the diminution of personal and foundations’ net worth in the past six months. Kinsley has overseen the building of the Museum as if it were his own home; he has insisted on re-doing the viewing stand for the marvelous 360 degree painting from the 1880s so that viewers get the full effect.
At this difficult time in the economy, it is important to celebrate success stories and to toast those hard-headed individuals who refuse to fail in their self-appointed tasks. If you want to visit the battlefield and the Museum, please send me an email and I will make sure that you have a superb guide, who can make it an unforgettable experience (best way is to ride a horse or a bike!).
Exhibits found inside the museum
Posted by Edelman at 1:33 PM |
Comments
Richard, for the past 3 years Gettysburg played host to the start of our AIDS bike ride - 3 days and 275 miles to NYC. We began each year's ride looking over the battlefield. For those of us who arrived the day before, the museum sponsored a bike tour, with a knowledgeable lecturer who answered our every question.
The town has always been welcoming and we will miss it very much!
It felt very appropriate that our ride began at the battlefield, for the AIDS battle continues, now in its 25th year. This year we will move to Boston to begin the ride, adding another 35 miles for a further challenge. And the spirit of battle will continue.
Barry
Posted by: Barry Collodi at March 29, 2009 9:19 AM
My high school AP History trip to Gettysburg was one of the most memorable experiences of my youth.
It's terrific to see what's being done to maintain history in a way that involved both the public and private sectors.
Note: I did see the famous Civil War ghost at Little Round Top. I was eating my lunch on a rock and glanced across the battlefield and saw it.
Posted by: Blagica at March 30, 2009 12:27 PM
Dear Mr. Edelman,
Your executive VP, Cathleen Johnson, brought your blog to my attention and I’m so glad she did. Cathleen is a long time friend and colleague and is on the board of directors of Tourism Cares, a nonprofit whose mission is to preserve the travel experience for future generations. The Edelman organization has been very supportive of our cause for which we are very appreciative.
That having been said, Cathleen brought Gettysburg to our attention a couple of years ago when the Gettysburg Foundation purchased an 82 acre farm on the battlefield, saving it from commercial development. The connection is that Tourism Cares, for the past 7 years has been organizing travel industry give back projects called Tourism Cares for America. These projects have brought tourism professionals from all walks of the industry together to clean up or restore tourism areas in need of care or rejuvenation. Places visited in the past have included New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast (pre and post Katrina), Mt. Vernon, Va and even a tiny mining town called Virginia City, Nevada. These projects complete in one day what it would take attraction staff years to do.
Such will be the case at the George Spangler Farm in Gettysburg on April 17th. I would be honored if you could attend and witness the hard work that volunteers will do for a place that you so dearly care for.
The Gettysburg Foundation, as you point out, did an outstanding job on the Museum and Visitor Center. It and the Cyclorama are spectacular.
Posted by: Bruce Beckham at April 3, 2009 9:43 AM
It is good to see things like this coming together. History is something that must be preserved. I like the fact that a lot of private companies donated to this cause. It just goes to show that good things can happen, even with the economic downturn. Perhaps this will let people know that there is still hope for developers.
Posted by: Austin Sterchi at May 15, 2009 2:29 AM
Post a comment
| TrackBackMarch 20, 2009
PR’s Responsibilities in the Current Crisis
As the global financial crisis has evolved into a serious worldwide recession, most of the critics’ venom has been reserved for the banking industry. But my friend, Matthew Bishop of the Economist, asked me in an email yesterday what the PR business has learned from the meltdown. While I do not believe that our sector was a primary contributor to the present malaise, there are clear areas for improvement, as follows:
First, we facilitated a cult of personality around business leaders, particularly those in the financial services sector. The paeans to captains of private equity and hedge fund CEOs in 2006-2008 were eerily similar to articles only a decade earlier on dot-com entrepreneurs and New Economy darlings such as Tyco and Global Crossing. The business press wanted heroes and we helped to create them.
Second, we lost the transparency wars to the lawyers, who opted for sanctity of content and avoidance of litigation risk over full explanation of objectives and disclosure of specific investments. The ensuing confusion on the business model has been detrimental to companies. It also undermines the relationship between employer and employees, as redundancies are initiated without understanding of the economic necessity of change.
Third, we failed to persuade management of the evolution from a shareholder to a stakeholder society in which a broader set of criteria are applied to evaluate success of the enterprise. Such a transition calls for a more consultative approach with employees, NGOs, government and consumers, as well as the pursuit of returns to reward investors.
Fourth, we have not sufficiently communicated the central role of business in improving society, generating jobs, or raising living standards. The current call for protectionism is one example of short-sighted thinking and an impassioned knee-jerk reaction. We have told stories laden with statistics and using economists as spokespeople, but are failing to counter the human interest tales of lost jobs. Out of frustration, people are turning to government as option of first resort.
This is an inflection point for our profession. The present crisis requires PR professionals to advise the C-suite on how to bridge to constituencies from civil society to government. We should use this crisis to move an agenda that encompasses both policy change and continuous communication. Business is expected to behave differently by explaining its plans prior to implementation and by listening to the broader community. We can help regain business’ license to operate by establishing consensus for action, then demonstrating performance against transparent goals.
I would appreciate your views as always.
Posted by Edelman at 12:33 PM |
Comments
I agree the "cult of personality" was one of the symptoms, although not completely sure it was one of the causes.
A core issue is that businesses don't HAVE to be moral. The market in fact provided short-to moderate-term (6-7 years) rewards to companies that were in fact not behaving morally but were maximizing the opportunity for profit.
I would like to think that businesses (and their shareholders) that behave morally correctly, create jobs and contribute to the improvement of our society will be financially rewarded for their conduct in the long-term.
The question there is how do we balance the long-term view with the desire for large institutional holders for returns now? My point being that many pension funds would like to invest in "socially responsible" companies but not to the detriment of the potential returns for their stakeholders.
My guess, is that we're all going to spend a lot of time over the next few years consulting with companies as they "go private."
Posted by: Josh Morgan at March 20, 2009 1:23 PM
Great thoughts. Although I'd caution people not to trade "a cult of personality around business leaders" for a cult of personality focused on political leaders, namely, Mr. Obama.
Posted by: Stephen A. at March 20, 2009 2:05 PM
Well said. But I'd go further on one of your points: public relations was a big beneficiary of the promotional culture of the last century. If we're to benefit from the move to a more humble and softly-spoken search for social legitimacy, then we need to distance ourselves from that overheated promotional culture. Otherwise we'll lack credibility; we really can't have it both ways.
Posted by: Richard Bailey at March 20, 2009 2:16 PM
I agree, Richard. This is an inflection point and the economic times signal a broader role for PR. We know that one of many ways we help clients is by offering guidance on better ways to communicate. But our experience levels have deepened and broadened over many decades. We’ve grown beyond the “old school” reputation of message magician. In today’s business climate, the PR counsel we provide has to be infused with business acumen. PR counsel and business counsel need to be coupled as one ensemble service offering to the C-suite, particularly when communicating business actions. And that requires knowledge within our own industry of how those actions will affect the bottom line as well as brand perception and goodwill. We do have that expertise, so my hope is that we'll utilize those business capabilities in more substantive, visible ways, as we offer up our best contributions in the midst of this economic crisis.
Posted by: Michele Nix at March 21, 2009 4:27 PM
Richard,
I have been reading with some interest your recent reflections on the current economic crisis.
The question posed by Matthew Bishop certainly challenges us to reflect on the role, we as communications professionals, have played in the past and can play in the future in business and civil society.
I think your analysis of where we have failed is correct. However, I believe that our failure to persuade or carry a debate can often by an inability to position our message/strategy in the context of the business case and in a language that the 'C-Suite' can easily grasp and understand ie. contribution to the bottom line or the medium - long term sustainability of the business model or institution.
While the environment in which we operate has changed and changed for good our challenge continues to be our ability to articulate the business case for communications, engagement and ultimately change.
The good news is, I believe, that for those who can successfully bridge this gap we will be pushing a more open door to earning that 'seat at the table'.
HUGH
Posted by: Hugh Gillanders at March 23, 2009 12:28 PM
Richard - do you mean "sanctity of contract" when you say "content" above? I enjoyed the piece but wondered if I'd lost something in translation.
I think that people who deal in these ideas, and understand or at least want to believe in them, forget what a long way we still have to go to be regarded as truly professional. The role of PR counsel in business strategy and behaviour is still demonstrably an add-on. That's why we see well-meaning starts knocked over by short term-ism time and again.
Posted by: Pattrick Smellie at March 23, 2009 8:22 PM
Richard - a great agenda for the industry.
An additional point which needs to be made and comes out of your first item; is the level of control which financial PR has sought to have over the financial and business media. This came through strongly at several events which the London School of Economics has held recently on financial journalism (www.polismedia.org).
Senior figures in UK business and financial journalism strongly criticized the financial PR industry for denying them access to investigate and cover stories properly and for creating an environment which was not conducive to the debate of ideas about financial markets.
Does financial PR need to re-think the model of PR it adopts and perhaps not hide behind the cover of financial market regulation, which clearly does appear to play a role in the story and can be used in a controlling manner?
Posted by: Mark Phillimore at March 24, 2009 4:28 PM
Hello Richard,
I was viewing your 6 A.M. blog titled "PR's responsibility in the Current Crisis" and for some reason, my browswer would not allow me to submit my comment. Whether it is published or not, I at least wanted to extend my thoughts to you. They are as follows:
I think Mr. Josh Morgan said it best when he noted that "businesses don't HAVE to be moral" in repsonse to the problems that you've addressed, Richard.
While businesses aren't required to be moral, I've learned through education and experience that it is our job, as public relations practitioners, to serve as their conscious -- making sure that businesses DO indeed partake of actions that are moral according to their consumers' standards.
The more businesses use the input that we as practitioners gather from consumers, the better they will be served, as opposed to being greedy and self-serving in their missions.
As you said Richard,the central role of business is to improve society, generate jobs, and raise living standards. Of course, profits must be made to sustain oneself and the business, however, focusing solely on profits makes businesses lose sight and foster an attitude of greed that inflates our economy and causes situations like those we are in now.
-----
Continue to inspire me and my progress in this industry with your insight! I look forward to working along side you someday.
Sincerely,
Mark Taylor II
Posted by: Mark Taylor II at April 1, 2009 11:03 AM
I think PR has an enormous capacity to influence not only the public but its clientele, including the banking and financial services sectors. The damage that has been done to the reputation of these industries will take a great deal of effort to repair. An early and ongoing partnership between financial strategists and experienced communicators could have helped predict and perhaps avoid some of the serious problems we face now. Chaucer said, "murder will out." So, it appears, will flimsy financial systems and schemes. The best PR firm manages its clients' reputations with more than pleasant words and slants, but with solid advice as the client makes its business plans.
Posted by: Michelle van Schouwen at April 2, 2009 11:25 AM
Post a comment
| TrackBackMarch 10, 2009
Mutual Social Responsibility – A Ground Floor Perspective
I spent this weekend moving endless boxes of books at the Hotel Pennsylvania in New York City. Lest you think that I need a second job to supplement my income, I was volunteering for Project Cicero, a local nonprofit that collects gently used children's books from the families of independent, parochial and public schools so that teachers from under-served New York City public schools can bring them back to their classrooms. More than 175,000 volumes were collected in this, the ninth year of the initiative. The program is organized by a nineteen woman board; they spend the year accumulating books, often in their own cars, borrowing storage space in basements or using closets at home as staging areas (this is the story at my apartment—my wife, Roz, is one of the nineteen).
The scene at the hotel is reminiscent of Grand Central Station during rush hour, as a hundred teachers at a time are allowed into the grand ballroom to rummage through the books displayed by topic (science/math, history, early reader). They have 30 minutes to grab armfuls of books, then stuff them into rolling suitcases. The teachers are largely young and tend to be female. They are incredibly grateful to Project Cicero for the opportunity to improve the classroom experience. Some of them are from Teach for America, which selects among the best and brightest of college graduates for a two year stint in public school teaching.
During my infrequent breaks (I was a lifter, the lowest form of labor—perfect antidote to any form of pampering for CEOs!), I had an opportunity to chat with a few of the teachers. I found them universally optimistic about their ability to make a difference in the lives of their students. They felt empowered to push for excellence. They acknowledged the resource constraints in the system, in particular large class size and absence of technology. But they are determined to find a way, to instill a love of learning. Their spirit inspires me, reinforcing my conviction that there is no more important job than teaching and that the world can be improved, one child at a time. The program was featured on Fox Business news this morning and you can view the coverage here.
This is my first effort at video blogging. Be gentle with your critique.
Local teacher shopping for books for students
Laureine Greenbaum, Co-Chair of Project Cicero
Local teacher shopping for books for students
Posted by Edelman at 2:47 PM |
Comments
Post a comment
| TrackBackMarch 5, 2009
We’re Entering a New Era of Mutual Social Responsibility
I am speaking this morning at the Wall Street Journal’s ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara on Green Marketing. I’m discussing how we are now entering a new era of Mutual Social Responsibility, in which people (formerly labeled as ‘consumers’ by marketers!) contribute to society’s sustainability and well-being in partnership with business, government and non-governmental organizations. But they demand a seat at the table and real voice in the discussion. The democratization of communications will require a more public vetting of the assumptions behind environmental marketing – from green brands to new power plants. It will also mean a conscious decision by companies about whether to be Light Green (at minimum standard) or Dark Green (a green brand, with ever higher expectations).
We are now in the fourth phase of environmental marketing. The first period, Defense and Response, began in the early 90s, with companies reacting to pressure by empowered NGOs. Examples include Heinz (a client) decision to provide dolphin-safe tuna in StarKist in 1992, and Shell’s (a client now, but not at the time) change in policy in the wake of Greenpeace’s highly visible occupation of the Brent Spar rig in the North Sea. The second phase, starting in the late 90s, Tactical Offense, saw the beginning of partnership between civil society and corporate sector, such as the Chiquita (a client) –The Rainforest Alliance’s Banana Certification Program or the creation of the Forest Stewardship Council ‘s much wider adoption of FSC with Home Depot’s purchasing commitments around certified wood products. The third phase, Business Strategy, was initiated in the middle part of this decade, with GE’s Ecomagination, where GE was explicit about its desire to make “green equal green,” with cost savings on transport, lighting, packaging plus potential for greater acceptance in a stakeholder society.
In the era of Mutual Social Responsibility, we see that companies will Operate Differently, Partner Differently and Market Differently. How will that work?
1) Operate Differently—There will be continual improvement in the supply chain because today’s Dark Green is tomorrow’s Light Green, ie the companies at the vanguard of driving savings through say, less wastage, will set new minimum standards. These changes will be part of the public record; there is no going back. SC Johnson (a client) has taken 61 million pounds of volatile organic compounds from the environmental footprint of its products by using earth-responsible raw materials. Marriott has committed to cutting 25% of its fuel and water consumption per room in the next decade. Dannon (a client) has been working to eliminate unnecessary packaging, such as the plastic overlid their yogurt cups used to have - that saved them more than three and a half million pounds of plastic a year. Companies believe this type of responsible behavior is not optional; they expect people will punish bad actors through their purchase decisions.
2) Partner Differently—Much of the interaction between civil society and business has been contentious. We now see that major NGOs are now willing to work toward a mutually advantageous outcome by partnering with business; by going beyond technical advice to establishment of standards. A good example is Rainforest Alliance which sets and publishes goals for worker safety and environmental stewardship. When companies partner with NGOs, a key part of most partnerships is that the results of the work are made available to other companies. As NGOs are advocates and not consultants, the new best practices that they create are meant to spread across entire industries, magnifying the environmental benefits. This open source solution is good for both partners’ credibility. Note that in the recent Edelman Trust Barometer 2009, NGOs are the most credible institutions in most nations, with respondents by a 3 to 1 margin asking for cooperation among government, business and NGOs to solve key issues such as global warming (as opposed to unilateral action by business and/or government).
3) Market Differently—Brands that establish themselves as green, such as SC Johnson’s (a client) Nature’s Source new line of natural cleaners or Stonyfield Farms’ yogurt, must be able to withstand heightened scrutiny on provenance and performance. They can be priced at a modest premium (according to ASDA, the UK retailer, about 10% premium for ethical brands, not the 45% premium that the retailer observes in many categories), such as Stonyfield’s yogurt justified because of the additional cost of organic ingredients. The brands must also be sold differently, as in the case of Brita (a client), the water-filtration system, whose FilterForGood campaign based on a peer-to-peer involvement—where people pledged to change their behaviors-- rather than classic advertising, model achieved sales increases in a long-established category. Professor John Quelch of Harvard Business School also advises companies “to couch claims in local context. There is little value in global calls-to-action.”
How will the recession affect behavior of people, and therefore companies, governments and NGOs? Seven of ten interviewed this fall for the Edelman Good Purpose Survey said they would be prepared to pay more for eco-friendly products. But Professor John Gourville of Harvard Business School (yes, I unashamedly go to my alma mater for quotes whenever possible!) suggests that while people aspire to good behavior, “When times are difficult, final decisions are made on bottom line cost.” His research on car purchase behavior indicates that while people are interested in miles per gallon they are unwilling to sacrifice comfort and styling. Several clients shared findings from their research which found that people are interested in living more green but unwilling to sacrifice convenience and effectiveness. People today expect a company to ensure their brands to be, say, environmentally sustainable, and they are not necessarily willing to pay more.
What is the job of PR people in this evolving marketplace? We need to offer people a full set of information on brands, their ingredients, their efficacy and the manufacturing process, while securing their continued insights and help. We can help ensure that business is values based--we can do the right thing for customers, communities and people-- that these values are part of clients’ DNA, affecting every part of how a company operates. We can partner companies with NGOs, who are constructive critics and advisors on supply chain or communications. Since mainstream media (68%) is the most trusted source of information on a company’s sustainability activities, interaction with reporters is essential. For example, a Unilever (a client, but we do not work on this brand) can benefit from publicizing a long standing product, such as Hellmann’s “Real Mayonnaise” as a food made simply from oil, vinegar and eggs, yielding higher sales and stronger corporate reputation. We can explain the role of newer players such as the IT industry, which could improve energy use in buildings or design smart highway grids, while offering server farms that are more efficient than individual corporate facilities.
Here is an interview with Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Ball: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655198432165465.html See also this article in the Boston Herald.
I would appreciate your views as always.
Posted by Edelman at 9:41 AM |
Comments
Hi Richard, Sometimes, pressing the message of being more responsible, green, engaged, secure, etc., is seen as having no real benefit to profitability. But as you've outlined, the benefits can be huge in terms of cost savings and brand goodwill. As an added example, I'd point to the challenge of convincing companies to ramp up security in their companies, prepare for worst-case scenarios -- natural disasters or cyber/security breaches, etc. Early post 9/11, most CEOs and CFOs discounted the notion that investment in security was good for business. There was still a "it won't happen to my company" mentality; "it's too costly," etc. What's been found, however, is that security investments (embedding secure technologies, improving communication, implementing crisis training, securing data and streamlining IT) are not only improving security, data protection, etc., but also improving greater collaboration, efficiency, productivity and, ultimately, the bottom line.
In my view, one of the best contributions PR people can make to foster a mutually social responsibility climate is to continue to educate our clients/executives on this notion. As communicators, we know that socially responsible corporate behaviors connect with consumers – even, to some degree, those consumers holding on to convenience and style. But we need more executives within our corporate community to understand the value of that link. By "managing up," we can help our executives and clients understand that the ROI of socially responsible behavior can contribute to a better, safer, greener world...and make for a more prosperous and profitable one, too.
Posted by: Michele Nix at March 6, 2009 4:04 PM
"Since mainstream media (68%) is the most trusted source of information on a company’s sustainability activities, interaction with reporters is essential."
Since the ways in which we receive information from the media are changing (newspapers shrinking/collapsing, social media influence), is there currently any way to tell how these changes will affect the trustworthiness of these mainstream news outlets?
Posted by: Scott Lansing at March 10, 2009 2:47 AM
It is sad that society feels most socially cohesive when trespass and violation has occurred. It is disappointing that the ego runs amuk in times of "supposed" affluence of accumulation. How many times does society need to be brought to its knees before the message becomes clear(er) - social responsibility should be the norm (the status quo) not the "newest fad". Let's hope that this phase lasts long enough to instill some ethical mores of contributing to society for generations to come...alas we can only hope. :)(
Posted by: INGRID EDELMAN at March 22, 2009 12:06 PM