Richard,

I can’t wait until Capitalism 4.0 is released. This quote from Public Affairs Books Web site: “The self-destruction of Capitalism 3.0 leaves the field open for the next phase of capitalism's evolution.” This quote begs the question, what were the root causes of Capitalism 3.0 (Thatcher/Reagan deregulation 1976-2008) self-destructiveness, will they be addressed and how?

Over the period, 1976-2006, U. S. House Campaign Expenditures have increased 1,152 % (http://www.cfinst.org/data/pdf/VitalStats_t2.pdf ). If HUGE increase, in any way, contributed to the self-destructiveness of Capitalism 3.0, which stakeholder(s) of our capitalist democracy will step-up to the plate to reverse and remedy this possible root cause?

I visited the CECP website but most of the info seems reserved for members. i wonder where you stand as far as transparency and accountability in philanthropy are concerned. There is a trend to push for more transparency and accountability but when looking at a few main philanthrocapitalists one can see they communicate very little about what is achieved (or not) with the money they generously give away. There is this sort of assumption that if you give it away it will be wisely spent. From my own (admittedly) limited experience in one very specific program where I found a lot of waste and incompetence and -understandably- a huge lack of transparency and accountability to avoid having to expose the problems I think there is a very serious need for philanthrocapitalists (and corporations giving away money) to follow trhough about how the funds are used (or misused). part of my experience is on
http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/africa
It concerns the tobacco control grants funded by the Bloomberg and Gates Foundation with the touchy issue of who is ever going to dare say anything even slightly negative about people generously giving away hundreds of millions of dollars.
We are asked to believe all is well but what if all is not well?
How can they get what they call "honest feedback" and do they really want to hear it?

It's slightly inaccurate to note that 'even Greenpeace has changed' in relation to relationships with NGO's, as this is not a recent change in strategy and approach.

As an independent NGO that does not take donations from corporations, that gives us latitude to either work with a company to solve an issue, or expose the company depending upon the issue at hand and how serious the company is in resolving it.

So for the past few years we have had productive and positive relationships with companies such as McDonalds (who helped secure a moratorium on conversion of the Brazilian Amazon to soya bean plantations) and Coca-Cola (who are eliminating climate destroying F-gas refrigerants from their fridges). And we have also had more trying relationships with companies such as Proctor & Gamble (who use large amounts of Indonesian Palm Oil, which is wiping out areas of rainforest and fueling massive greenhosue gas emissions) and Samsung (who use a variety of toxic chemicals in their products and don't have a timeline for phasing them out).
Dialogue with companies to secure solutions is highly valued. The alternative (everything from ranking guides to exposing scandals to more direct action) helps bring issues of global significance out into the open.

Either approach is valuable in tackling the great environmental problems of our generation, though the approach of dialogue is often a smoother way forward for companies.

Hi Richard, interesting commentary from your attendance at CEO Conference. Discussion on role of government as referee rather than director is very much explored in Inger Jensen's very good paper from 2001 on "Public Relations and emerging functions of the public sphere" which addresses issues of organisational legitimacy and identity. I would very much recommend.
http://newmediaimpressions.blogspot.com/

A most curious example of CSR I've encountered is Raytheon, a large defense contractor, which has sponsored a multi-million dollar campaign to get middle-school aged kids more interested in math:

http://www.mathmovesu.com/

Long term goal being to increase the pool of candidates available in the type of positions Raytheon needs to fill. This campaign was created for Raytheon by Arc Worldwide, a marketing agency (and my employer prior to Edelman).

Thanks not only for your perspective on True/Slant, but for bringing it to my attention. I am now enjoying its' voice.

Thank you for this. As a student of international relations, a successful corporate executive, and a fan of the insights provided by the Trust Barometer, I hope to engage you in a conversation regarding next generation PR. After the seismic shift ushered in by the global financial crisis, and the current intellectual one that followed in its aftermath, I believe the PR industry is well positioned to equip a new generation of leaders (political, corporate, not-for-profit, civic) with the necessary understandings of this new and complex era for continued success. A colleague and I have written a manuscript which outlines this new world. I believe Edelman would have a unique market position to benefit from this insight and continue to lead in the future in the manner that it has done so in the past. I would be delighted to share and/or discuss with you or any one at your firm, this tremendous opportunity. Thank you in advance.

Here is more of a message to you, rather than a comment to this particular blog post.

Many congrats on Edelman's recent selection by AdWeek Magazine as PR agency of the year. For a future blog post, I'm very interested in your thoughts about this comment from the article about you:

"...whose entrepreneurial spirit and hands-off management style are applauded by his staffers. While he holds people accountable for success, he encourages risk."

That's quite a balance you have been able to find -- hands off management, encouraging risk and establishing accountability.

Any thoughts or tips would be great.

In my own personal opinion, True/Slant is the best of both worlds: a blend of communication with the public and responsible journalism. We live in a society today that is based on interactive media. Everyone has an opinion on everything, and each individual is not afraid to publicly display these opinions, both positive or negative, on the Internet by means of social media and blogging. However, True/Slant gives us, as public relations professionals, a chance to give our opinions to the interested public and maybe even get a fresh point of view, or see something we overlooked, and make adjustments accordingly and increase out successes. I think the quote by Dvorkin about the mission of True/Slant is evidence enough that this is a credible endeavor in which each public relations professional should be involved. We will finally have an outlet to describe what an organization is doing, or what they are all about, in depth and get almost instant responses. This will be extremely helpful for other professions as well, especially marketers. Not only does it benefit organizations and businesses, however, it will be a wise opportunity for educated individuals to see the opinions of their favorite journalists firsthand. I think that you are right, that we should work in both the free and paid sides of True/Slant, and you make a very valid point that we can help reporters get publicity and attention for stories that may still be of public interest but not getting space elsewhere. True/Slant is a great opportunity and blend of social media and journalism and would be a great outlet for many organizations in this digital age we live in today.

Must say I find myself agreeing with you. Your idea to stake your agency on authenticity and the character content of this post. Strange that Coppenhagen did not get the support it deserved in digital space. I love Hopenhagen, the branding of the message. It was lost on the public though. Haiti stole the thunder on Twitter, on Facebook and new media haunts.

I felt many were gutless with Hopenhagen, the science did not come through. How is it the public is receptive to Movember and Haiti and not the very thing that their children will thank them for in years to come, not there prostate problem. I feel this post needs greater exposure.

Many of the so-called objective articles I see on climate change reflect a definite point of view.

When I teach journalism at a local university, I tell my students unless they are producing an editorial, their writing should take the Joe Friday “just the facts, ma’am,” approach and not expose their opinions and biases.

The wall of objectivity – which also protects the journalist – has long ago disappeared. This is particularly true in political stories where the advocacy approach has resulted in a loss of credibility.

I believe the most valuable information is in the last graph of this piece. It warns PR pros to be careful not to simply bestow credibility on scientists but to explain things in a factual, non biased manner.

A final note: I would give zero credibility to scientists who have altered data to promote their point of view. In doing so they have betrayed their professional integrity and done damage to the causes they espouse. Reporters and PR pros who excuse or defend such fraud will damage their own reputations.

Richard:
Your point about explaining "science" in a concise, factual manner is precisely what is needed and I am delighted that you pointed it out. If science is presented to the public-at-large in a way that gets understood and processed, it will build advocacy and speed acceptance and then change. If this happens, governments will be rendered weak in face of public outrage -- especially so as to climate change, since all will be impacted.
Noemi Pollack

I agree with this last comment posted. Due to the tragedy in Haiti, the disucssion in Coppenhagen was far less agressive than it could have been.

Hopenhagen was a strong branding message, however, I think that we tend to overlook long term damage such as the climate crisis when there's something to address 'in the now.'

It's unfortunate that the opportunity in Copenhagen was somewhat lost because of scientists not knowing how to better communicate these facts to the general public. I admire the University of Long Island for taking the innitaitive and addressing this problem which has caused set backs for many years.

I'm so glad you've blogged on this subject, Richard, but I would go much further in expressing pessimism about the way the global scientific community and IPCC are responding to the corrosive impact of the climate change deniers, who are using the failure at Copenhagen and pedantry to undermine the political consensus that existed prior to Copenhagen for global climate change action.

Perhaps I am being too alarmist, but the IPCC needs to consider the possibility that the smear tactics are not only working, but that the tide has already turned as a result of climate deniers' simple and alluring message that "they've lied, we can all forget about it".

That message dovetails perfectly to the profound sense of powerlessness that most people have with respect to climate change. Just recycling old newspapers and tin cans isn't going to save the world and we all know it.

In the meantime, the undermining of IPCC science looks to me like a classic "loss of trust" issue, where the previously "trusted" scientists will take too long to realise - or perhaps may never get over the sense of affront to be disbelieved - and fail to mount an effective strategy to regain trust in their work.

This will not be achieved by rebuttal, but by acknowledging up-front the loss of trust and starting right from the beginning again to rebuild climate science models in a transparent manner that allows sceptics to have their say on the way through.

The most likely reason for something like that not to happen is that it will take so damn long. But that's the point - trust lost takes a long time to restore. The less effort is made at the critical moment when trust is lost, the longer that timeframe will be.

Richard, Thanks for the post. I heard you speak at the Climate Disclosure Project Launch during Climate Week NYC in New York. Your admonition to "tell stories" directly affected a keynote I gave at Purdue University the following month. My presentation was about applying the ideas of W. Edwards Deming to climate change. I told the story of the Northwest Passage and all the men who gave their lives trying to find a route, getting stuck in the ice, wintering for consecutive seasons, and many perishing. For 400 years the search was deadly and futile. Today however the once impossible task is accomplished by a cargo ship (even without re-inforced hulls) in a matter of weeks! The contrast gave context and perspective to climate change, and it told a human story. I got many positive comments and I believe it got people thinking differently. Another tool I have used is to embrace climate change as a theory. Gravity, Evolution, Relativity - all theories - have brought about new knowledge and changed the way human beings understand and interact with their surroundings. Climate change theory is just as powerful and is also bringing forth new knowledge.

As public relations professionals, we are called to be open communicators between organizations and the public. A middle man, if you will, between the high-powered intellectuals and “average Joes.” Science is a difficult subject for a majority of people due to the content of the topic, the concepts, the jargon. It is hard for the average person to comprehend and interpret data like scientists do. That is why scientists need to improve their ability to communicate on matters that concern the entire public, especially when they are as controversial as global warming. I agree with you, that PR should be involved in the release of scientific discoveries, findings and studies because communication is key. In order for scientists not to lose their credibility, they need a way to learn how to improve their delivery of “accurate and compelling information” in an unbiased way that is easy for everyone to understand. It is vital, however, that these PR professionals who are presenting scientific information do not overstep their boundaries and move from an unbiased perspective to a biased one. If you did not conduct the research yourself, you can’t stand behind the facts and data and be able to explain it better than the person who actually conducted the study. As public relations specialists, we are here to assist with the communication process, not to persuade someone that fiction is fact. We can not make something that is not credible, credible, which is why we must solely present the facts, but just in a way that every single person in your target audience can understand and comprehend them.

It is a very valid point that PR practitioners need to be careful on how they communicate facts and information from the science world to the public. The public depends on journalists and PR practitioners to find out the truth and clearly communicate what scientists are finding out, so that the public can read and learn in a language that is easy for them to understand and still be knowledgeable of what is going on in their world and surroundings.

It is the job of journalists and PR practitioners to convey accurate information and to hold accountable the scientists who are releasing the information. If scientists do not have people who are checking their work and reading and understanding their material, there would be no accountability.

It is also necessary to see who is funding the projects of the scientists and to make sure that the information they release is accurate and not twisted for the people who supply the money. The public needs to know that so the scientific world does not produce biased information or information that is incorrect.

I agree with you that PR practitioners have to be the ones that find out the facts and give credibility to the information that scientists and researchers discover. PR practitioners do not need to debate government actions or explain hypotheses, but simply explain the findings and help the public have a full knowledge.

I agree with you that this initiative at Stony Brook University is an excellent idea and will be to the great benefit of emerging scientists. The average person neither has the intellect nor the patience to understand the important information that scientists have to report. It is definitely to a scientist’s advantage to learn how to better communicate their message so the public will be truly able to understand the latest advancements in science.

Another aspect that needs help is making science compelling. Even if scientists can clearly communicate their message they must also remember that people often find science to be dull and must not only make it understandable but also interesting.

As public relations practitioners we can also have a great influence on getting out the messages of these scientists. We know the way people hear things best and can help scientists communicate their message, like you mentioned, with the least bias possible. And many times it can be easier for PR practitioners to speak for the scientists so that they are able to focus on their work. If we each focus on our strengths then we can each be successful and can accomplish a similar goal of distributing the scientific information to the world so it can benefit everyone’s lives.

As PR professionals, it is our duty to communicate the ideas of our clients to the global community through different media outlets. When it comes to scientists, you make a good point in acknowledging that scientists are not always the best at explaining their findings in an understanding way to men and women with only a common education of science. In a situation where advancements in knowledge have occurred in areas like global warming or stem cell research, the information must be understandable. The Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University is on the cutting edge of journalism, providing ways for scientists, journalists, and PR professionals alike to learn how to tell science stories clearly and understandably. It is important for PR professionals to take advantage of this new education. When asked by a client to relay information to people involving complicated scientific research it is important that we can do so in a clear and precise way that allows people to walk away in total understanding of the findings. We must be the bridge between the scientists and the people. The only way to do that is to work hard with the scientists to find a way to take their research and present it in a way that does them justice but can be read and understood by a high-schooler. That is a PR professional’s job, to educate and inform.

Dear Mr Edelman,

I interrogated the survey here:

http://paulseaman.eu/2010/01/edelmans-trust-survey-interrogated/

It is the third time in a row I have done so.

You and I agree on most points. I am happy to make Trust about commitment and action. It requires a different sort of communication approach as well speaking via employees, academics, NGOs... not just from the top of the company. Thanks for taking the time to review the Trust Barometer in depth.

Richard

Dear Mr. Edelman,

I thought this post was very informative as a student studying public relations. Public relations is ever changing and constantly being influenced by different things such as what you chose to write about, world leader’s priorities, and social media. I chose to comment on 6 of the 8 points you made in your post of world leader’s priorities that you observed from WEF 2010.

Concerning your point of government on the front foot, I agree with Mr. Cordes in saying that the government in today’s world intervenes much too frequently. Regarding the Opel case in Europe, I read in an article titled “UPDATE 3-Germany says EU concerns don’t endanger Opel deal” on reuters.com that the German government offered 4.5 billion Euros to the General Motors European arm in return for a promise not to fire any of the current workers for the car company.

With all of the news about banks such as National City going bankrupt, this is a very important topic to discuss. I agree with Mr. Perella on the notion of how one can’t have extreme bonuses linked to short-term profitability. I believe that by participating in that kind of behavior is considered counter productive and is giving employees the notion that the bank business is doing well since they are getting a significant raise when in fact, banks are experiencing exactly the opposite.

From a public relations point of view, displaying a positive image of the company you are representing to the public is very important and is best done through contributions to society. I agree with Mr. Porter and believe that companies need to take on social issues such as work place safety and environmental stewardship in order to raise investments within the company. I believe that if you contribute to society and show the public that you care about your employees by improving work safety or that you care about the effects your company may be having on the environment and find ways to cut down your company’s carbon footprint, then people will notice you are making an effort and thus be more likely to invest in your business.

President Calderon of Mexico said that there are two gaps that are threatening us: the rich versus the poor and man versus the environment and I semi agree with his statement. I think this is an issue in the United States as well. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, thus leaving the middle class to become thinner and thinner. This is exactly the opposite of what we want; ideally we would want the majority of the people to be in the middle class with small amounts of people in the upper and lower. The gap between man and environment is less of a problem because we are doing and advertising many ways for us to be more environmentally friendly. Companies such as Toyota are coming out with hybrid cars, companies such as Energy Star have come out with fluorescent light bulbs that save energy, companies such as Wal-Mart have pushed using reusable bags when we shop, and companies such as Brita have pushed water filtration systems in place of buying bottled water. I feel like companies and people have come a long way and are being more environmentally conscious in their actions.

In your point, “Sustainability as a core value,” I noticed that you said that it was suggested that water used in cities be recycled but that psychological barriers still exist that prevent that from occurring. I can honestly say that I wouldn’t feel comfortable with reusing the city’s water; there’s just something about me drinking water that has been used to clean someone else’s body that unnerves me. I do however agree with Mr. Banga is saying that it is a company’s responsibility to educate consumers so that the consumer can make well-informed decisions. In the paragraph above, I stated companies such as Toyota, Energy Star, Wal-Mart and Brita and these companies have done just what Mr. Banga says is a company’s responsibility: educating consumers about sustainability issues and then solutions that the company may offer to combat such issues.

I think it is an awesome idea to link technology such as weight and blood pressure monitors to PCs in disease prevention because that is where the majority of individuals at any age spend their time- in front of their computer.

I really appreciate your post revealing some of the priorities of world leader’s so people like me, who are studying public relations in hopes of going into a career of public relations, can cater our thinking and client counsel around these observations you made while you attended WEF 2010. Thank you for your insight and documentation of your observations so that others may learn from your experiences and thus be more efficient in his or her public relations role.

Dear Mr. Edelman

I found this post, particularly the comments on education extremely interesting.By making education possible to those it was not an option for before would be like allowing an entire part of the world to help each other by helping themselves. If those 36 million children in Africa that currently are not allowed an education were given the option to go to school that would greatly decrease the amount of poverty, sickness, and who knows what else. In turn this would greatly increase the quality of life, amount of opportunities available to people, and economic well-being of Africa. Giving these people the option to be educated will empower them by allowing them to help themselves more than any other donation we could give to them would. Violence, terrorism, and poverty will then become less profound in areas where it now runs rampant.

But, we all already know this. What I feel most people do not think about is where we are going to get the people who are going to educate those in need. I am happy to see this is a point being addressed by McGraw Hill. Teachers need to be educated in ways that allow them to take what they learn and apply it to the changing market; education shouldn’t just be about what you know anymore. It needs to be about what you know and then how to use what you know and do something useful with it to benefit society as a whole. Having the program online is a great idea because I have found online classes take more self-motivation and discipline. Consequently only those that really want to learn the material and digest what they are learning will do well. Because of this, you will get teachers that really want to do a good job, and that really want to be doing what they are doing.

First it is our goal to find those educators who want to deliver a quality education to those who want and need it more so than ever. That being said, educating them first takes priority. I am a current PR student and I feel that being socially responsible is one of the most important things and I am so glad to see this being recognized.