Strategic Planning Still Paramount…and Lacking

Noted PR pundit Shel Holtz recently shared his favorite communication planning model – which he actually attributes to Wilma Matthews. At a high level, I endorse this basic model and strongly agree with the premise that careful planning prevents communication (or PR) for its own sake. Too often PR professionals – across all disciplines – give in to the tide and begin to communicate without a clear target, plan or purpose…beyond perhaps getting “hits” or spiking the tone and focus of media coverage or customer feedback. 

Where I stray somewhat from the basic recipe suggested by Holtz and others is that their models invite a simplicity and superficiality which belies the complexity and nuance of most communication scenarios. One example is the selection of audience(s) – which in many of the real-life programs I’ve developed and executed requires a miniature plan in itself…with a range of discrete audiences demanding their own tactics, messages, channels and even metrics. Another element that is not evident in the model is timing…as in what happens when. Too often, tactical plans and message platforms are developed as if they have a static shelf-life, while in reality they should probably evolve in conjunction with changes in audience awareness, perception and behavior. Another example where subtlety is often lacking is in messaging, where too often plans prescribe blunt, aspirational (if not disingenuous) messaging without consideration for supporting evidence, tone, context, customization and feedback from target audiences. I won’t even mention metrics, which is often sorely lacking in both the planning and execution of PR programs. 

My final reservation is really more philosophical than tactical. What many communication plans seem to miss is a dedicated section prescribing what to do – with regard to a policy or corporate decision – as opposed to just what to communicate. This may seem like a small nuance, but it’s not; it’s the difference between sitting at the executive table helping shape the critical decisions and being asked to help communicate a decision that’s already been made. I intentionally frame my plans to feature our recommendations on what the organization should do in response to a particular situation. 

In the final analysis, smart communication planning  is rarely a bad idea, but using basic cookie-cutter models should be a starting point rather than the final step.

Unions Jumping on New Media Bandwagon

An article in the Los Angeles Times last week provided a good summary of union campaign tactics being used against Starbucks – apparently now a close second to WalMart as the favorite target of union organizers. The gist of the article is that unions are increasingly leveraging “new media” tactics to spread the word and gain traction for their organizing campaigns – with the central premise that the inherent communication benefits of social media (low cost, huge reach, networking and multi-media capability) is providing a boost to these programs. Examples of new media tactics in the Starbuck’s program include worker videos posted on a website, a guerrilla “hijacking” of a Twitter program and an on-line petition.

Despite the focus on social media, I don’t think these campaigns will be any more successful than previous ones just because of the Web 2.0 tactics. For one thing, authenticity and credibility are paramount in social media programs, and these efforts are clearly biased and polarized. Even the union organizers behind the campaign agree the ultimate intent is to promote the potential EFCA legislation, and attack critics like Starbucks. Even though these networking/viral efforts may theoretically “spread the word” – to use the language of the union organizers – I doubt they will engage many beyond the core supporters or interested pundits. For one thing, Starbucks is no rookie when it comes to social media and PR and has aggressively responded on the Web and on proprietary sites as well as traditional media. So this continues to be a “he said, she said” battle, with each side trying to promote it’s position and leverage the networking ability of social media. Yes, there are Starbuck’s employees featured in the campaign who are critical of management and pushing for union representation, but that’s not new and doesn’t seem to represent a widespread trend.

This campaign sounds to me like similarly clumsy attempts by some PR and advertising firms to generate “buzz” by releasing “viral videos” on YouTube. I have no reason to believe it will spark any more public support or tangible policy change than previous efforts in traditional PR. Campaigns like this only generate genuine interest and momentum when they are legitimate grass-roots efforts that touch a nerve with a large community of consumers – like the infamous “Comcast must Die” website, which recently shutdown in the wake of apologies and concessions from Comcast. Otherwise, they are little more than manufactured “astroturf” campaigns destined to generate limited attention and change.

Obama Learns Importance of Context in Messaging

It’s been interesting to witness the commentary on President Obama’s communication efforts the past few months. Despite many kudos on the pace and breadth of activity of the Obama administration, one prominent thread has been the frustrating dearth of context to the blizzard of announcements and initiatives. Check out this article from back in March. In recent weeks, Obama has been getting credit for providing more direction and  framework to his platform. An Obama speech in April as he approached the end of his first 100 days in office - see two examples of coverage here and here- seemed to finally satisfy the public (and media’s) need to understand how all the initiatives tied together. The basic building blocks were there: a checklist of the major initiatives; a five-step plan highlighting the salient platform objectives; a preview of future activities; a summary of how success will be measured. In short, he laid out a cogent plan that allows him to position his policies and programs in the context of a larger goal.

In recent months I’ve witnessed a parallel to this situation in my little corner of the corporate world. Communicators seem eager to promote specific events or programs, but often miss the critical step of positioning these announcements in a larger context that would help recipients - whether it be employees or customers – to make sense of the information. In many matrixed, global organizations the challenge for communicators is working across functions and regions and developing broad programs or messages that cut across individual businesses. Easier said than done in increasingly lean organizations and the pressure to talk first and ask questions later. This propensity to punch out serial announcements – often with dubious news value – is only increasing with the popularity of social media tools like Twitter and blogs, which encourage short, frequent jolts of information. Furthermore, it’s clear that news outlets - slave to their 24-hour news cycles and propensity to favor drama and hype over substance – will rarely fill in the blanks or dig deeper than the headline.

The lesson here for communicators is to remember our critical role as strategic counsellors and planners. If we don’t help organize the noise, who will?

PR Still Out of Sync with Social Media

A recent post by prominent blogger Robert Scoble – who among other things is a columnist at Fast Company – serves as (yet another) plea to the PR industry to stop “bad pitches.” Scoble complains  in his post that his efforts to push back on unwanted and/or misdirected pitches sparked a backlash of criticism from PR pundits and staffers alike. His point – instead of listening and learning too many PR staffers vilify the critics and stubbornly go on their merry way like it’s 1999.

Unfortunately, I’ve seem plenty of evidence first hand that supports Scoble’s unflattering assessment. Recently I witnessed so-called social media experts at one firm suggest they intended to pitch to a variety of influential bloggers… just because they were influential. No matter that they had no real news, that the pitch (as it was) had no topical connection at all to these bloggers or that the company had established no relationship whatsoever with these bloggers. One can imagine the reaction this would have generated with the recipients. Some agencies seem unable even to reassess the relevance and value of their services, still promoting bulk coverage in traditional media as the ultimate measure of communication success. I’m not honestly sure why the industry continues to demonstrate this blind spot around social media and continue to push blunt,  mass pitching. Perhaps it’s due to the fact much of the dirty work in agencies is still done by the most inexperienced (and inexpensive) staff. Maybe it’s the pressure to product results – no matter what they are. Whatever the cause, until agencies overhaul their tactics and respond to the complaints they will continue to turn influential pundits like Scoble into critics rather than advocates. Worse, they will push existing and potential employees out of the PR business.

Using PR to Turn the Tide Against “Junkets”

It’s been interesting to see the PR counter-offensive by the U.S. travel industry against the tide of criticism against so-called business junkets. A couple of weeks ago I saw full-page ads in several major papers suggesting that cancelled meetings translate into millions of lost jobs. The “Meetings mean Business” campaign includes a major PR and advertising push, a new Code of Conduct for companies using taxpayer dollars, personal video vignettes, advocacy outreach, a robust website, etc. The campaign appears to be working, at least in terms of political leaders like Barney Frank and even President Obama urging caution in branding travel as ill-advised spending. This may help differentiate the egregious retreats by AIG and other TARP recipients from the legitimate trips by thousands of organizations investing in their staff.

Wells Fargo Campaign Shows Good Offense is Not Always a Good Defense

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.

The Most Important Question in Public Relations

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.

Why are So Many So Bad at PR?

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.

Are Slogans Good or Bad?

In the latest Fast Company the authors of “Made to Stick” argue that the urge to use catchy slogans has created a cacophony of flip, empty catchphrases at the expense of substance. In their post, these guys raise some great points – namely that too many communicators (or wanna-be copy writers) focus most of their intellectual energy on developing snappy phrases and not enough on a broader strategy to communicate a marketing position or corporate program. I agree that the end result is often vacuous, misdirected top-heavy campaigns that are dead on arrival.

That said, a cogent, catchy phrase can play an important, even critical role in an advertising or communication campaign. There is logic behind the urge to develop slogans – as communicators we’re often trying to convey complex themes and messages in a crowded, busy environment. We’re competing for eyeballs, after all, whether we work in PR, internal communication or advertising. So it can definitely help to develop a phrase or slogan that nicely captures the essence of your message – if only to have a “label” and facilitate the promotion and delivery. The catch is that slogans have to be relevant and credible, and backed-up by supporting activities and information that provide the required context and drive the desired action (whether to buy a product or support a strategy.) The other challenge is that one slogan can be great, but in too many companies several teams are throwing a number of competing slogans (and brands and icons) into the mix, which  dilutes the impact of all except the best.

Perhaps the lesson here is that execution matters. There is nothing wrong with a great slogan – as we’ve learned from the world of advertising. But making it great is more than a cool phrase.

Sometimes Facts are Not Enough

I noted with interest a recent blog by Shel Holtz on the criticism aimed at AIG for conducting expensive meetings after being essentially rescued by the Feds. I agree with Shel that AIG could have done a better job explaining the rationale and benefits of this meeting, and I guess I buy the argument that companies still need to do all they can to recognize and incent their best performers. But in this case I think the better approach would have been to anticipate the PR disaster and either cancel or amend the meetings. In other words, the PR team should provide counsel that changes the original decision or policy rather than just provide a more cogent explanation of why the meeting was justified or take steps to clean up the mess. One of the most important roles of PR pros is to act like canaries in a coalmine…to plan ahead and drive decisions to keep the company or brand out of trouble.

Given the economic angst and the baggage around the actions of the Fed – why are they helping only large financial companies? – the outrage and PR fiasco surrounding AIG is not surprising. And like in many other situations, the so-called facts simply did not reach or resonate with most observers. The headlines were already imprinted.

Of course, since this initial scandal AIG has had its hands slapped again for conducting other pricy events. See this summary blog. Only belatedly did the company cancel all remaining “non essential” meetings, but the damage has been done.