You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Corporations' category.
Major American banks continue to demonstrate they haven’t learned the lessons of their recent PR debacles. Wells Fargo recently took out full-page ads in several major U.S. newspapers announcing they had reluctantly cancelled employee recognition events, but they also defended the practice and blamed the news media for misleading coverage on the issue. Check out a story on the ads here.
The ads created predictable churn on the Web and among pundits. I found this commentary by CNN’s Campbell Brown to pretty close to my view on the topic – Brown gives Wells Fargo the chutzpah award for a strong and spirited counter-attack, but argues the tactic ultimately fails and suggests the bank would be better served spending funds on their employees rather than expensive ads attacking the media. Wells CEO John Stumpf should certainly be commended for wanting to recognize his employees and giving them a public high-five in the ads, but his comments also reflect the hubris and insularity that has generated so much vitriol among critics of the banks. Notwithstanding the merits of employee recognition, this is not the time nor the channel to argue for costly trips. Would it not have been simpler to simply introduce alternate recognition tactics? I know of several companies who have eliminated recognition trips and meetings and replaced them with other rewards, with apparent understanding from their employees. A Wells spokesperson claims that in addition to setting the record straight on the trips, the ads were intended to publicly acknowledge the accomplishments of employees. Even if you believe that, it might have been more effective to use the cost of placing the ads directly on employee rewards.
Every once in a while it hits me. More than ever, there is huge momentum to communicate. Executives, bloggers, marketing executives, pundits…and they want to communicate internally, with consumers, with and through media outlets, to influentials…you name it. This malady is particularly visible in employee communication efforts, where adherence to the mantra that you can’t communicate too much in times of crisis has fostered a blizzard of activity. I suppose this is a good instinct, and it certainly bodes well for those of us working in communications across all these audiences. But I’m concerned that besides a great desire to communicate, there is much less clarity as to purpose. We need to go back to the first and most important question in communication – why?
In the majority of cases where there is demand to get out message out, raise our brand profile or become part of the conversation, I detect little beyond an inexplicable and fierce appetite for action. Let’sstart a blog. Shouldn’t we put out a press release? Can you help us promote this with employees? But if you scratch the surface it’s often unclear exactly what these well intentioned folks want to achieve beyond vague aspirations of visibility or being able to check off “communications” on their project roadmap. Are you trying to sell more product? Is this designed merely to inform or drive substantive changes in behavior? Who is the target audience? In short…why are you doing this? In some cases – when there is no clear imperative or desired outcome – the communication plans should be shelved altogether.
Given this context, one of the most useful roles communication professionals can play with clients and peers is due diligence – going through a logical planning process to confirm objectives, audiences and communication opportunities. Sounds very prosaic, but without that simple checklist the communication effort will likely do little more than add to the ambient noise. It’s time we add “confirm rationale” as first item on the planning checklist for PR activities.
The latest polemic about the perils of on-line communication – in this case the unfortunate Twitter comments by a Ketchum executive – provides more fodder for those who fear to tread in social media. Check out the summary of the developments on this AdAge post. Certainly, there is a lesson here (if we needed another one) that what you post on-line - no matter where it is or how innocuous it appears – can rapidly spark a domino effect of unintentional consequences. In this case, the Twitter post (with unflattering comments about Memphis) was discovered by FedEx employees, who in turn turned up the volume by sending their response to a broad swatch of FedEx executives. Once the executive was identified (he was in Memphis to present to FedEx as a social media expert) Ketchum was forced to do some predictable mea culpas.
But I tend to agree with this AdAge columnist that the original tweet wasn’t much of a smoking gun, and that the tension increased largely because of the agency-client dynamic. So if there is a secondary lesson it’s that when you post on your own behalf – even through an alias on Twitter – you always need to consider how the content will reflect on your role as a PR professional, or agency representative. The line between personal and professional is nebulous and quickly forgotten when comments are lifted out of context or – as in this case – the content straddles the line.
Already, this small dust up is being leveraged by those who like to focus on the risks and uncertainties of social media. The incident has been mentioned to me several times within the context of “see what can happen…” with the unspoken suggestion that it may be better to avoid the whole messy thing altogether. Few would deny the dynamics of social media – the global reach, the permanent legacy, the nasty vitriol, the shifting etiquette – require caution and thought. But the fact a pseudo scandal can spread quickly and unpredictably is no reason to avoid the Web.
Over the past year or so, there’s been no shortage of examples of companies (and their leaders) showing an incredible propensity to stumble into media scandals or PR fiascoes. Let’s start with the Big 3 U.S. automakers going to Washington to beg for money in private jets and with their nascent rescue plans written on the back of a napkin. Or AIG stubbornly going ahead with lavish training or recognition trips as if they were flying high and the economy was humming. Or leaders of humbled (if not bankrupt) investment banks arguing for their typical million-dollar bonuses.
How could this happen, one might ask. These executives are presumably very smart people. These companies likely have large PR staffs that monitor the media and political winds. How could they not have anticipated and prepared for these events when it was so obvious to most observers their actions were ill-advised and smacked of delusion and hubris? I chalk it down to three critical flaws – call it my “axis of PR evil”.
- Insularity – Though it seems unbelievable that a company (or culture) can become detached in this 24-hour, multi-media, mobile Web environment, it would appear some of these protagonists either ignore, dismiss or don’t comprehend what is happening outside their doors. That is more likely in a cultural environment that beats the drum loudly and limits candid dialogue and external input. In other words, they drink a lot of cool-aid and listen to themselves rather than outsiders.
- Arrogance – A good way to get into trouble is to start believing you’re smarter than everybody else. Or don’t have to follow the same rules. Or deserve a better fate (and paycheck) than mere mortals. I don’t personally know any of the executives embroiled in the scandals I’ve listed above, but they all appear to have very healthy egos – even as their companies crumble around them and they go hat in hand to Washington. That may be good for their self-esteem, but good leaders need the humility and self-awareness to recognize mistakes and accept good advice. With these folks as leaders, arrogance can easily become a cultural virus spreading across an organization. It all adds up to a toxic mix.
- Greed – It’s clear that a common thread in many of the recent PR scandals is the most basic of human flaws – some people like to make as much money as they can…sometimes much more than they deserve or is legal. Nothing new here, perhaps, except for the brazen, delusional extent of the greed as the economy crumbled around them.
What’s the lesson for PR professionals? Be the voice of reason in spite of intense pressure to conform or be silent. Help to break through the insularity and arrogance. Bring the outside in. And never drink the cool-aid…or at least, too much cool-aid. If all of these efforts fail on a consistent basis, it may be time to reevaluate whether you should stay in your job.
In the past few weeks, I’ve been involved in wide-ranging discussions about developing a vision for a company. Usually, this process is slow and painful, largely due to lingering confusion about the differences between a mission (what you do and how you do it) and vision (where you want to go…who you want to become). No, this time the sticking point is on how broad the vision should be.
At the outset of these discussions, somebody proposed a vision statement that was heavily focused on business goals. The formula: If we make X, our objective is to make and sell more X to more people by doing Y. I realize some companies use financial targets as aspirational goals – I’ve been in a few of them - but I’ve always found these to be ephemeral and shallow as vision statements; they seem to imply that making even more money is the beginning and end of any vision and good enough reason for me to stay with the company. I think this narrow perspective misses the point that companies are more than just an organization for selling goods and making money. Companies are members of the community. They are (potentially) forces of social and economic change. They are home to employees and guardians of a distinctive culture and workplace environment. In that context, developing a true corporate vision requires a holistic perspective that defines the company not just as a business entity or provider or products and services, but also as a corporate citizen and employer. Companies striving to appeal to the intellect and emotion of employees – and customers – are likely to get more traction from this well-rounded approach.
The recent economic turmoil, and virtual imposion or acquisition of a number of celebrated financial institutions, raises interesting questions about the value of brand equity. In short, what is it really worth in times of crisis?
For years we’ve heard that a strong brand provides a cushion of goodwill in difficult times and allows firms to charge a premium for their products and services. There is a great deal of empirical evidence and logic to support that theory, but then what happened on Wall Street the past month? Firms like Lehman Brothers, AIG and Merrill Lynch have spent billions over the years burnishing their reputations and had what appeared to be strong brands supported by long histories. (Newcomers like WaMu and Countrywide were also big advertisers, but most would agree their positioning with customers was less solid and mature.) But those celebrated financial brands held little or no value when customers and investors began to doubt their liquidity and/or business acumen. Their reputation – built over years of consistent performance and marketing muscle – did little to slow or stop their disappearance. Whatever inherent confidence customers had in these customers was apparently fragile and transitory.
One could make a case that firms like Morgan and Goldman Sachs have survived the crisis partly due to their strong reputations – and brand equity – but their survival could also be due to smart management and a few lucky guesses on investments. And it’s certainly true that brands cannot survive serious strategic mistakes or bad financial bets. But the very brand essence of these firms was trust. Was all the marketing a waste of money?
I think the answer lies in the fact shaken consumers have lost trust in a wide range of institutions – not just Wall Street firms - and that goodwill and reputation is more ephemeral than ever. Furthermore, I believe the companies that have disappeared all did serious damage to the trust equity they had built by selling, promoting and investing in financial products built out of smoke and mirrors. When customers realized these firms had peddled risky products, they lost confidence and fled to higher ground - both for self-interest but also likely as a punishment for a breach of trust. Strong brands will still do better than others in most circumstances, but a powerful brand is not a guarantee of safe harbor in difficult times.
One of the ongoing mysteries of modern business for me is the reluctance of American corporate leaders – particularly in Human Resources – to fully embrace the management credo that focuses on work output rather than hours worked (the old “butt in the seat” mentality.) This movement has picked up speed as technology expands the opportunity to do work and stay connected pretty well anywhere in the world. I’ve had the good fortune to work at organizations at various places on this continuum, ranging from total autonomy (a truly mobile, virtual office environment) to a much more regimented office environment…where the hours when you arrive and leave are seen as a litmus test of dedication and productivity. Unfortunately, the latter is more the norm, particularly in the corporate environment. (I recall one job where leaving before 8 pm was seen as such an affront that colleagues would avert their eyes to avoid any semblance of silent collaboration with my “early” departure.) Agencies and consulting firms can also demand long hours, but they tend to be based more on business and client requirements and staff are typically given much more autonomy to decide where, when and how to complete their work.
The authors quoted in this recent BusinessWeek article suggest that the problem is not just an executive aversion to risk, but an outdated and unfounded logic based on the false premise that hours worked equal productivity. That argument has been so thoroughly debunked by many companies (Cisco, Best Buy and REI come to mind) you’d think resistance would be eroding. Yet, many leaders and board members continue to look askance at any suggestion that the traditional 9-to-5 model be changed. I think another factor is that deep down, many managers still do not trust their employees to do the right thing and do their jobs. I would argue that assumption is equally questionable – and the problem is not the working environment or rules but the lack of commitment and productivity of the individual employee. The problem is the person, not the rulebook.
True, not every company, job or person are well suited to an autonomous, flexible model. There are important considerations when dealing with a blue-collar workforce, for example, and some jobs require on-the-job presence, but for many positions the work can be done just as well from home, the road or even the beach or coffeeshop – whether in groups or solo. And even for manufacturing gigs, there is room to give staff more freedom to decide their routine and hours…as long as the production stays on track. In an age where there are increasing productivity expectations on workers, and where work demands continue to encroach into personal time, it’s neither fair nor realistic to for companies to demand flexibility from employees without affording them the same commitment in return.
