You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Strategy' category.
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.
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.
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.
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.
