CSR is not a product of PR

“Today, corporate social responsibility goes far beyond the old philanthropy of the past – donating money to good causes at the end of the financial year – and is instead an all year round responsibility that companies accept for the environment around them, for the best working practices, for their engagement in their local communities and for their recognition that brand names depend not only on quality, price and uniqueness but on how, cumulatively, they interact with companies’ workforce, community and environment. Now we need to move towards a challenging measure of corporate responsibility, where we judge results not just by the input but by its outcomes: the difference we make to the world in which we live, and the contribution we make to poverty reduction.” Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer

Corporate Social Responsibility has indeed come a long way since signing a few cheques to charity. It is evolving to become a way of doing business, and an increasing number of organisations are changing their business models to fit into this new environment. As we've seen over the years with Nike, Gap, Nestle and many other MNCs, have been been under the limelight for their less than ideal business practices. As we understand the greater significance of our consumerist lifestyles, the only way of sustaining ourselves is by moving to a "sustainable" way of producing, consuming and disposing things. And organisations are also focusing on these concepts. But, there are many industries where changing business models will not compensate the damage to the environment. As a result, such companies engage in other activities. While the intent is usually goodwill, CSR has gathered a bad reputation because it's construed more as an image building exercise by organisations than a genuine attempt to contribute to the community. 

For all those companies that are indeed guilty of trying to seem like they care about their community, and the impact they're having on the environment, there are an opposite number who're genuinely looking to alter their business to deliver on the CSR promises. The fact that organisations such as CSR Europe, and regulations set up the UK government help in bringing firms to the book. But, as is the case with most consumer oriented organisations, it's often a customer, or a disgruntled employee who blows the whistle on their malpractices. From all the ongoing conversations about transparency, sustainability, and similar industry trends, there are something that most organisations are aware of, if not implementing: 

• The likelihood of attracting customers who're interested unsustainable products is diminishing—slowly but steadily 
• Sustainable business models are the only ones that will be able to compete in the future market place where resources are bound to be scarce
• The internet, social media and other technologies are making it impossible for companies to hide any step of their production processes. While there's a thin line between company confidentiality, and transparency to stakeholders, it can be easy to trespass it due to the internet, and companies need to be careful. 

As more organisations realise that they can't hide behind philanthropy, and  making genuine contributions is an imperative, it becomes obvious then that PR has little role in convincing audiences that the organisation is really oriented towards its operational environment. Winning trust is a by-product of CSR (and shouldn't be the end goal) but it's one that's very hard earned. 

From soapbox to notebook: political communications come a long way

Wowing people to vote for a political party has come a long way since screaming oneself hoarse over a soap box. (London's Hyde Park with the Speaker's Corner is one such relic.) As Obama unfolds his plans to run for the second term, his landmark campaign that drew on the strengths of new media, will no doubt set the bar higher. Millions spent. Millions were wowed and he won a term as the president. However, attributing this win to his new approach to campaigning alone wouldn't be right. There still remain some fundamental aspects to winning over an electorate. 

In the US particularly, it's acknowledged that presidential elections are as much about image management, and projecting the right kind of personality, as it's amount having the right backers. In the UK,  humour and policies are key to who wins. This isn't to say that USA is given to frivolous showmanship as opposed to real policies. But, one can safely say that image management (case in point: Gordon Brown's Leader in the living room during last year's elections) in GB doesn't fly very well. We looked at images of Maggie Thatcher pre and post her standing for elections, and though the makeover is obvious (the infamous 28 eggs a week diet!), one can't say she won for her looks!

But aside from the candidates themselves, there are other operatives in this process that lubricate this delicate procedure of getting them elected. Their campaign managers, and of course the media. There's complex web of relationships that often lie at the heart of such political appointment. The media, as we know, still retains its position of disseminating information to the masses, and its opinions are often taken seriously. 

While many political strategists and others disagree about the impact newspapers (reportage and commentary on politics) have on the ideologies of the public at large, one can't definitely say that they have no role to play. At the top of all this comes the business of running the media empire, and who the "Big Cheese" favours is obviously an important aspect in this game. There has been lots of commentary about the influence ownership (or also known as media bias) has on the journalistic standards. But the take-away is that industries (lobbies et al), politicians and the media make strange bed-fellows. In the interstitial spaces exist the PR machinery that has to ensure that the right kind of information goes out, the right things are written out, and the people working for the candidates, (or even elected leaders) are in the know. Alastair Campbell set the bar when he gave those at Number 10 pagers, and took no excuses for not being in the know! While such micro-management of everything doesn't always work, the role of PR in keeping all fronts of the government (and party elected) together can't be undermined. There are few roles where one is a gatekeeper of information, image manager, communicator for colleagues, and information manager all rolled into one. 

As the levels of engagement that politicians share with their electorates change, thanks to the profusion of social media, the roles that PR persons play are set to change. One can't help but wonder what the next soapbox will be!

Social marketing: the real deal?

Social marketing has been defined as: 

The application of commercial marketing technolo- gies to the analysis, planning, execution, and evalua- tion of programs designed to influence the voluntary behavior of target audiences in order to improve their personal welfare and that of their society.

While most marketing techniques focus on getting people to think, or feel about something in a certain way, cause marketing, or social marketing relies on changing behaviour from the grassroots, is aimed at achieving sustainable behaviour change. 


This distinction between behaviour change, and attitude change is crucial—especially as a PR practitioner. Most campaigns aim at making people aware, or persuading them to do something about a product, brand, etc. But social marketing or cause marketing, whose purpose is social good is distinct. Its success depends on people realising the problem, and taking active action (not mere awareness) to rectify it, and not on sales figures. Within the UK, five-a-day, Breast Aware and Know your limits (for alcohol)are among the many campaigns run by the government for public welfare.


The environmental movements that have been running have provided deep insight into the many dos and don'ts of cause marketing. Mr Sean Kidney—who made a presentation on social marketing—gave us the example of UK's "Switch it off" and "recycling" campaigns, which require people to do as directed. Although, they're noble in thought, he questioned their effectiveness towards really making a difference to the real issue—which is using non-renewable methods to produce electricity.


While we, as consumers, assume that our little contribution by way of flicking the switch, and recycling is helping the environment, he argues otherwise. Although many (of us) felt shocked that we weren't doing "our bit", his point is valid!  


"If change is necessary, at what step does it start? And, are we being naive in assuming that our contributions will really make a difference to the larger picture, as we have been led to believe through decades of governmental policies and messaging?"


But the end result isn't the only distinction between social marketing and other marketing methods. Social marketing, as reiterated by Mr Kidney, requires (of the many): 

• Defined outcomes (do you want the regulation to change or do you want people to stop littering the street?)
• Very defined audiences that may not necessarily be targeted by media, but could result in actual change  
• Defined changes you want people to make  

For those who seek to make a real difference to big issues, that treads past traditional methods of approaching a problem, social marketing is definitely the way to go! 

Is there such a thing as a Free Lunch?

The second episode from Dr. Aleks Krotoski's "Virtual Revolution" series, titled "Cost of free" works like an eye-opener for many who think that everything that's on the internet, and for free is done by people with an overabundance of milk of human kindness. But truth couldn't be further from it. Through the episode, one realises that the world wide web is in fact dominated by a few big names. The information that's circulated, which is seemingly limitless, is controlled by those who wield power—by offering things for free. This is not to say that these brands seem like conniving business houses that are exploiting our naivete. But it's important to be cognisant of the dangers of relying on things for free. 


Milton Friedman's book "There's no thing as a free lunch" offers insight into issues that we tend to gloss over in every day life, and the fact that governments can seldom offer anything for free. Taking a cue from these theories, it's plainly obvious that every single choice we make has a consequence—an idea that many economists have suggested. But, do we ever pause to weigh these consequences? I'd hazard a guess and say no. We don't because often aside from being ignorant about the implications of our choices, we're too preoccupied with the "instant gratification" that we have come to relish, thanks to the internet.

Dr. Krotoski's documentary is one such piece of work that joins the dots with regards to the internet and its apparent "freeness". It offers different perspectives to the idea of "free internet", and perhaps what it really means. From the documentary, we come to see that this invention that governs our life (the documentary does in fact conjure up a 1984-esque Orwellian image) is oddly handy, forever evolving to pander to our  fancies, and diligently works to make us more reliant on it.  


Though the documentary doesn't present such a dour, and dark picture entirely. It ends on a positive note, taking cues from the nature of the beast. The beast, in question being the internet, does have a way of trumping over those who can shout the loudest by virtue of their might. The downfall of the music industry brought about by Napster is one such example. One is tempted to believe that perhaps somewhere on the horizon there's another revolution underway that will once again overturn this new order that the internet has ushered in. 


At this point, it's important to understand the implications for PR practitioners. In most countries with fairly evolved PR industries, social media is touted as the next big thing after the invention of the printing press. In part because there's so much access to the audience, and in part because it can't  be controlled—which makes it a double-edged sword. But this Eutopian view of social media is  perhaps slightly naive. Especially, when we consider the role of PR practitioners in not just selling soap or soup, but for other applications such as political communications, governmental communications, etc. Can we really rely on a service that's relies on people's naivete and eagerness to engage to transmit our messages properly? The economics and models of operation that are used by internet platforms such as Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, LastFM, etc. are dependent on people giving out information, which is then commoditised and sold to marketeers. And if our messages are discordant or different to the ones that are being paid for—or indeed even criticise those paid messages—will we still have a voice? This debate of voice gets even more complex when we introduce Moloney's concept of pluralist societies and PR's role in them. If we're the ones persuading people, and our messages are not the ones that are being paid for, will we still be able to do our jobs? 

Internet—the voice for a pluralist society?

Recently, we watched the "Virtual Revolution" documentary series presented by Aleks Krotoski and the impact of the internet on our lives. Although, we watched the "Cost of free", the first episode of the series "The Great Leveller" provides an interesting starting point. 


It's particularly relevant to the PR industry since it relies so heavily on the media, and the advent of Web 2.0 and its increasing enabling power to everyone around the world is of special interest. The inventor of the world wide web—Tim Berners-Lee—invented it simply because he thought it was a necessity. It stems from him, and the other creators of The Well to challenge the accepted forms of authority and hierarchy within society, where the ones with the loudest voices had power. The episode highlights these aspects of the birth of the world wide web. This debate of challenging authority is of importance to PR, much like Moloney argues: that in a pluralist society PR has an even greater role in making voices heard. However, as the episode progresses, one notices that the purpose with which it was invented is now perhaps lost. Krotoski points out that now the world wide web is in effect a market place dominated by a few voices that wield the most amount of power. Going by the number presented, it seems that the world has "one online book store in Amazon, one shopping store in eBay, one search engine in Google" and so on. In fact, there's another question, if these are the names that dominate the web, and these are the gatekeepers of the information that filters to us, then haven't we reverted to the traditional form of hierarchy? Perhaps it's a pessimistic outlook, and Web 2.0 has indeed given many people voices, unlike before. But we can't ignore the fact that even today, as more blogs and voices turn dead, the ones with the most amount of money (and therefore power: case in point Huffington Post as suggested by the documentary), do indeed wield an influence on what's read,  what's talked about and what forms the agenda. 


In this climate then, one can't help but question the role of Public Relations as a tool that can perhaps serve to realistic push through and past these voices, using the channels and tactics endowed by the world wide web.


 

A good day to bury bad news: spin doctors say

The term spin doctor, surprisingly, doesn't come from sport. Instead, it comes from the idea of spinning yarn, or tales as we understand the phrase to mean. Within the UK political landscape, this term has gained widespread usage. Popularised during Alastair Campbell's role as Director of Communication for Tony Blair, in one fell swoop it changed the perception of UK politics and politicians forever. It maligned the role of PR within politics to the extent that today anyone who dares to take on the role must wrestle with the alias of "spin doctoring" as Andrew Leighton notes in the Journal of Public Affairs. He says that by the end of New Labour's term, the role of spin, the role of spin doctors, and media interest in these two were firmly established in UK. 


However, there are some important issues we must address before we rush to wag a finger at these so-called "spin doctors". 


Cutlip suggests that the purpose of democracy itself closely matches the purpose of public relations. Successful democratic government maintains responsive relationships with constituents, based on mutual understanding and two-way communication. 


If we were to apply this corollary to real life, we would find ourselves in exactly the same process that Campbell established as Communications Director of Blair. He established a media monitoring room, was quick to the draw when it came to responding to media critique of the PM's policies/ideas, and more importantly, was willing to go on the record through his lobby meetings. So instead of saying that a senior official close to the PM, there's a real name. The fact that journalists can hide behind the clause of "protecting the identity of their sources" should be considered minutely for the kind of lies/misappropriations they get away with. 




During class, we watched News from Number 10 which offers an insight into the machinery at Number 10 during the Blair Years. Of course, some important questions emerged:

• who controls news agenda? 
• does media spin, or is it the communicator who's spinning? 

Campbell vehemently maintains that it's the newspapers/journalists who spin news. And to some extent, I'm tempted to agree. Here's why: what makes news? Something that's controversial, or needs explanation (this might seem like a generalisation, but do think about it. The 5 questions of a writing a news report emerge from then need to inform people about "an event"). We all know that journalists to hold their opinion, and views of the world very dearly, and are paid to present their perspective. So isn't it likely that a journalist can read too much between the lines, when there's little to read? After all, if one can hide behind unnamed sources, one can then theorise and speculate till the earth stopped rotating!   

Since the history of campaigning and politics, it's obvious that politicians have chosen two ways of winning over an electorate: by highlighting their own virtues and policies, or denigrating the opposing party. 

If presenting your best foot is spin, then how do you win over an electorate?

If you want to remain in power, and in favour of the electorate, is it then wrong to "present information in a positive light"? The role of public relations within a democracy then comes into question: do we only continue (by Cutlip's definition) maintain responsive relationships, or do we frame the flaws of our leaders (and perhaps employers) for the world to judge? With the case of spin, it was an import from America, where leaders are a product of marketing and polished images—and everyone knows that. However, the UK is a different story. 

Blair, being a product of such marketing and polish, was the ideal candidate to usher new ideas of engagement with constituencies using media, as the documentary shows. But, this folly of assuming that "tell it all, tell it fast, and tell it first" would endear them to the British publics was flawed. Campbell did want to be on top of "24/7 media environment", but it backfired on more than one ocassion. It gave rise to scandals such as the dodgy dossier, a good day to bury bad news and the infamous fax that Campbell dashed off to BBC, among others. But, it also gave Blair 8 years in power. The era of Campbell-Blair led to the Phillis report—proof that things were so wrong that someone needed to clear through the rubble and melee of mixed messages. Public trust, as the report says, was low: not just in the government but also in the media. 

It makes for an interesting read because in large parts it agrees with Campbell's approach of making the PM more accessible and doing away with the "culture of secrecy" (why this bias is something that we need to look at). But then it also makes some valid points about the failure of that model to inform different stakeholders to allow a health public consultation on important issues. Although Blair's politics was much criticised for the lack of clear information (and sometimes saying so many things that they themselves were confused), it did have its own merits. Of the many recommendations the report offers, this one stands out for me: 

As a whole, the government has not grasped the potential of modern communications as a service provided for citizens.This starts with identifying who needs to know what and how best to get that message or information to them, and then measures the resultant attitudes and views to feed back into the processes of policy development and service delivery. It involves listening as much as talking. Its focus is on the public, not the Minister or the party or the media.

Such a rationale, and clear approach can help rebuild the trust that people used to have in politics, politicians and their promises. But, it can't be instituted until these elected members then do what they say. 

Vidcast on transparency as a growing trend

As organisations around the world are put under a microscope by stakeholders more than ever before, the need for transparency is heightened. The video below highlights why we have reached this stage, in what ways can we help achieve this goal, and the potential risks it poses to the organisation. I hope you enjoy watching it. 







Disclaimer: This video contains audio and video inputs from different sources, and was produced as part of an assignment for a degree course. No copyright infringement is intended. The designation of the speaker is fictional.

Stakeholder Segmentation: are the existing models still valid?

One of the fundamentals of communication is to bear in mind whom you're talking to. In PR specifically,—and more so with organisations—this develops into a more complex subject since the priority of the stakeholder group keeps changing, depending on the intended communication. There are many ways of looking at stakeholders. But to start with, during class, we looked at the three nomenclatures: stakeholders, publics and audiences. Is there a difference? An elementary Google search lays out the distinction very clearly. Stakeholders are affected by an organisation's actions. Audiences are those who participate in any activity—by reacting, or being present, etc. Publics, on the other hand, are said to be a collective of various groups. Therefore, by that definition, can we say that under the umbrella of publics, stakeholders and audiences reside? 

To decide about prioritising one's communication to stakeholders, various theorists have come up with their models that would help create effective strategies to achieving desired goals. Grunig's situational theory states that there are four types of publics: 

• Latent: a group that faces a particular problem as a result of an organisation's action, but doesn't recognise it. 
• Aware: recognise the problem.
• Active: a group that organises to discuss and react to the problem. 

The theory further segments publics based on the range of issues to which they're responsive. But in the new media environment, these distinctions, according to me, are a little old-fashioned. When you're planning your communication activity, with New Media in mind, these boundaries between latent, aware and active are so blurred that the strategy (an effective one) has to target all three without much of a distinction—or utilise the same media platforms that the biggest group uses. The limitation with this theory is that it doesn't take into account the role of media which has morphed dramatically since the theory was first published. Given the types of platforms available to organisations, how does one segment the stakeholders? So we considered some other alternatives. 


We examined Bernstein's wheel. But again, by virtue of being dated, the way in which an organisation communicates with its publics has evolved. Marketing has become an overwhelming umbrella under which many of the stated practices fall, and PR still struggles to create its own niche. Further, it's limited by its seemingly one sided style of communication. Given the presence of Web 2.0, the conversation as we all agree isn't one sided anymore. However, it is an improvisation over Grunig's seemingly rudimentary divisions, since it at least takes into account the various environments for an organisation. 

Then there's Esman's Linkages theory which divvies stakeholders into what impact or relationship they have with the organisation. Enabling links being the ones that are crucial to the organisation's survival, functional offering inputs, normative linkages being the peer companies and the diffused linkages are termed as the group that has an interest in the organisation's activities. While this model does take into account various groups, it doesn't take into power of influence based on the organisation type. For example, there are some companies where the diffused group might be more influential than perhaps the normative ones. Also, interestingly it relegates media into a very small role, which is unusual given how widely it's consumed, and the current media climate. 


The Power-Interest Matrix, although seemingly simplistic, segments stakeholders into a matrix on the basis of power they wield and the interest they might have in a particular issue. It seems effective because it's fluid, and stakeholders can be moved from one section to another based on what is being communicated. 

Broom and Dozier too came up with ways organising stakeholders:

• demographics 
• psychographics 
• sociographics: covert power/position/reputation/organisational membership and role in decision making process
• behaviours 
• communication behaviour

This system, although cumbersome, does seem fairly apt in understanding the intricacies of stakeholders that have a bearing on the organisation, its decisions and activities. However, yet again, the media isn't taken into account. 


Each one of these models seem fraught with deficiencies that perhaps have emerged with changes in technology since they were first published. Perhaps, we now require a new method of segmenting stakeholders based on their relationship with the organisation, and the tools of communication available to connect with them. However, crafting one that's rigid would again be futile since relationships between stakeholders and companies are fluid (in the context of customer loyalty). Therefore, a model that's flexible is also key to developing working model for stakeholder segmentation in today's PR scenario.

The secret power of political lobbying

Image, courtesy: Stock Exchange

Each time I think of the word "lobbying", I'm reminded of India's very own version of lobbying for power: bribery. It's simple, effective and pervasive like the flu virus, and has held the country in its grasp for decades. In western countries, lobbying needs something else—not money in real terms. It's the revolving door; ensuring that corporations have a voice in the governmental decision making, and can often turn the tide in their favour. The "Super size me" documentary forces one to ponder on the implications of power that corporations wield. And in this, the role of a press officer. When you have an organisation as big as McDonald's can essentially lobby its out of allegations, aside from bad press for a bit, is there much to contend with? In this instance, the role of the press officer is particularly interesting. What is she/he supposed to do? We saw that the lady in the documentary sounded poignantly helpless—and it can't be missed. Is that the situation faced by most press officers in large corporations?

NGOs: Activists or terrorists— a PR professional's perspective

Image from: Amazon.com

There was a time when organisations could get away with murder, and no one would be any wiser. But then came along that three letter word that changed many things—including government policies: non-governmental organisation. For most people, an NGO is a body that stages protests and does all kinds of crazy things to gain attention; perhaps with little success in meeting their actual goals. But in class, I was pleasantly surprised to note that there are actually a number of ways in which they affect change. Right from negotiating with organisations to improve their practices, helping form regulations in partnership with governments to mobilising people about important issues by informing them. 

We also watched the very popular documentary titled "Super size me". It raised a critical question: where does individual responsibility (in this case of eating unhealthy food) end, and corporate responsibility begin? I couldn't help but wonder about the corporate communications person's position. It wasn't a position to envy. She was torn between her job, where obviously her employers asked her to ignore the film maker. What would I have done in her position is what I kept asking myself. When one is sitting in classroom, it seems very easy to say that you will do the right thing. But transport that into a real life job, and the notions of ethics, right and wrong, greater good and other textbook definitions of a PR practitioners role seem lofty. This isn't to say that being a righteous, and ethical practitioner is ridiculous or unattainable, but it's very demanding nonetheless.  

NGOs play a crucial role at times, in pointing companies in the right direction. It doesn't seem entirely bizarre that a company that's a preoccupied with running a business might lose sight of "greater good". The fact that NGOs can often serve the company's need to not damage their community, and environment says that it's a mutually beneficial relationship. Of the recent commendable achievements for an NGO, I can think of 38 degrees's accomplishment in getting the government to turn around on selling England's forests. It's heartening to know that in our world where market economics are force greater than any known to mankind, beating governments and companies in their game of perpetuating their goals selfishly is something NGOs have been doing successfully—and rightly so!


In the end, it keeps boiling down to this for the PR professional sitting on either side of the fence: keep your eyes peeled, and if you find an ally, keep them close!


This topic was a part of our discussion in our contemporary issues in PR class.

Recipe for crisis management?

Image courtesy: SXC

Today, in our Corporate Communications class, some of my classmates presented case studies on crisis handling/ reputation management. Cases in point were: Cadbury's salmonella story, Toyota Prius, and Dasani bottled water by Coca Cola. Although we all debated the finer points of why these brands suffered the crises they did, the discussions brought to light the question of "is there a template for crisis management?" As our course leader said, and I wholeheartedly agree, if crisis management, and reputation handling was so simple, surely multinational organisations would buy a book, and we would all be condoning their follies. But as it turns out, there isn't really a recipe. There's no set method that tells you what to do exactly. Like my classmate pointed out with the Cadbury case, it was also a question of timing: summer time when chocolate sales are usually low in the UK 

Every single case study we discussed today brought up the phrase "immediate response". In my last post on crisis communication, I questioned how is an organisation to react when the people within it don't know what's going on? This time, we go beyond such an obvious question. Here's we ask: when do we sound the alarm bells,being PR professionals within an organisation? At what point, does it make sense to approach the higher-ups, and say, "Oops! We have a problem!" It also brings up the issue of cultures, as is always the case with any PR story! With Toyota, people said that part of the reason it didn't react "in time" was because of the in-house teams that were advising the company. It was only after substantial public outcry, did they hire an agency in the US. Compare that with Peugot's quiet recall  of cars made with Toyota during the same period, which although was a mere safety measure, it was a pragmatic to check nonetheless.

While all these are points that one should consider while examining any PR disaster—and there are many where a brand's existing reputation has provided that essential buffer—Toyota in particular strikes me as a reverse case. Cars have failed before. But this one came across as terrible...why? One of the reasons that struck me was, aside from the delay in response, perhaps the very values that people buy into with Toyota were shaken. Safety, trust and security...when a brand doesn't deliver on its promised values, perhaps it's a bit like shooting yourself in the foot, no? 

But as they say, we can at best learn from other people's mistakes, and hope to make even lesser ones of our own. 

Not doing what you propagate?

On Feb 2nd, BBC2 aired a documentary called Who gets the best jobs? Richard Bilton investigated the question of social mobility offering rich ones better jobs, by virtue of their existing privileges. In the process, he interviewed people from many professions. Typically, doyens from these fields gave their own views, some pro and some against the belief. He also met with some bright young students looking to get into professional jobs, and not belonging to privileged backgrounds. 


In all of this an unwitting man—Modus Publicity, director, Julian Vogel—exposed himself in a not very flattering manner. Whist he spoke about how his firm often hired interns from well off backgrounds (only adding to the debate of socially mobile class getting a chance at the good jobs), and failed to answer if that was his business model (to hire people as interns so as to not have to pay them), he seemed utterly blindsided by Mr Bilton. Of course, while the PR industry has been up in Twitter commenting about it, and posting their feelings, it seems shocking that someone in his position would let himself open to such an interview. But in his defense he says, his company isn't the only one to employ interns without paying them. Interesting question there!    

Let's make a war: the art of spin

All warfare is based on deception: The Art of War


When one considers the definition of war, it's hardly ironic that it's everything we know to be true of it. What? I'm not making sense...am I? We know that in most cases war is disproportionate levels of aggressions. We know it involves mortality. We know that we have come a long way since waging them for survival and preservation of our species. And yet, we  can't seem to apply this understanding to refrain from engaging in meaningless wars. At the surface of it, this might seem like a terribly simplistic thing to say. But, really, did anyone ever benefit from them? Nope, I'm certain the answer is no. How is then that most leaders feel no remorse or guilt in leading their own countries, and being responsible for massacre? 


For our contemporary issues in PR class, we were shown a documentary produced by BBC, called War Spin, narrated by war correspondent John Kampfner. It's subtitled as Saving Private Jessica: Fact or fiction? From focusing on the story of Private Lynch who was allegedly saved from Iraq through a mission carried out by American troops, it then continues to detail the systematic way in which the American government, followed by the British government led its people into believing that the Iraq war was an honest mission to find WMD, and Saddam Hussein. Many things have been long since established, among them the fabricated nature of the war. 


But the documentary in itself is instructive of many things. It tells us that with a very adept communications strategist you can convince the world of anything, even a war. It's all about changing perceptions and painting the right kind of picture. At the same time, it also calls into question the morals (or lack of them) of the people who played key roles in creating this mirage of a war. 


Propaganda, and public relations have been associated, and questioned as two sides of the same coin for many reasons by academics and practitioners alike. In this case, the propaganda was to paint a different picture of a country that was simply looking for a reason to plunder an oil rich nation, and created one. This they did using some novel, and classic techniques. 


Step 1: Announce it to the world 
Step 2: Find some allies to help prop your story
Step 3: Invite journalists, and embed them, but be very careful about what they have access to
Step 4: Make sure that they receive only that information that you want them to know. Nothing more; nothing less
Step 5: If the people of the country, and other nations start asking questions, cook up stories about great war heroes and their tales of bravado: e.g.—Saving Private Lynch.

The documentary also informs one about how beguiling the rest of the world bought these stories. This wouldn't have been possible without the crucial cooperation of the media around the world that dutifully fed back information that was "drip fed" through daily briefings. At long last, many journalists did smell a rat, but the economics of running media conglomerates and need to be the one who got the story trumped the need to be accurate and questioning. While one can't point fingers at the media for the same reasons,  there will be others who will be looking to maul the strategists, and reputation managers.

After watching the documentary I felt awed by the sheer genius, not to mention magnanimity of the ruse. It does take exceptional skill and brilliance to orchestrate something like that. And while there's no denying that propaganda (in context of war) and persuasion are wrong, we should stop faulting Public Relations practitioners. It's not about condoning them, or criticising their actions but making sure the reprehensible ones don't get away with a change in government. Above all, it poses one very big question: whom can you trust to do the right thing? 

The craft of crisis management

Murphy's law is a crisis's best friend. And for a PR practitioner, his/her biggest foe. Whether it's an organisation or an agency representing a client, having a crisis plan is akin to rehearsing the fire safety drill once a month. Not only does it save precious minutes in an emergency, but usually saves lives too. In the PR world, it keeps heads from rolling in the aftermath. 


In a day and age, where if you didn't like the way you were served your morning coffee, you tweet about it, and if your coffee chain is following the steps I'm going to mention, you will in all probability receive a free one—you can't afford to not be aware of your environment! Especially, if you happen to be on the side of the coffee chain, and are a PR person like me, it means "constant monitoring" for reasons we all know too well. 


Of the many crises we may have witnessed in the recent past, there are two that strike me as important lessons in crisis management. Yes, on number one position is BP. And the second is Tiger Woods. 


We all read tens of web pages dedicated to vilifying BP, and some that even came to its rescue. Their PR efforts were rubbish, and perhaps soon there might even be a book on it titled: How not to handle a crisis: Lessons from BP! Indeed, there are lots of lessons to take away.


But when information is just beginning to "spill" out (pun intended!), and a company often has little to no information, how can one "Tell it first, tell it fast, and tell it all?" In hindsight, it seems almost unbelievable that a giant like BP would let its comms fail so miserably. It did. And then for an instant, I'm driven to think about being the proverbial "bad guy". Everyone hates oil companies, and they're bound to attract flack. So the question then is, can you really save face when you know you will be pelted anyway? 


Which brings me to lesson number two. After women came falling out this closet (and thankfully not skeletons of them), Tiger Woods as a brand plummeted faster in stock value than even dead weight in the sea! But instead of placating gossip mongers, and their hunger for lurid details, he chose to remain silent. Much of what we know about Woods is part of very well-established "image". What goes on in his life isn't for public consumption, whether it's pre or post the "revelations". In the face of criticism, brands dropping his endorsement deals like hot potatoes, it takes remarkable courage to simply apologise and offer no information. Some think it was stupid to not say anything. My raison d'etre behind such a tactic would be: whom would it benefit to reveal the sleaze behind the affairs? What's the point in dissecting the details when he would anyway lose his endorsements, and further embarrass people?  


Call it legal smarts, or an ineffective PR machine, the man stayed tight-lipped. His performance has dropped, but even after Vanity Fair's article that prods people close to him, little is known from the horse's mouth. The brand has lost its sheen, and it perhaps will never be the same. But as with all of history, public memory is fleeting. More importantly, if you take responsibility, you will also be condoned. I don't know where Tiger Woods or BP stand in public eye after their epic falls, but I do know there are three key things to note. 

In a nutshell: 

• Be honest 
• Take responsibility  
• Offer information before everyone else 

But before everything else, keep your eyes and ears open! 

Image, courtesy: dreamstime.com

Social Media and its relevance for Public Relations

Social media can be defined as any such media that can engender an interactive dialogue between people, irrespective of their geographical boundaries and time differences. Social media gains more momentum as the number of people around the world who access it increases exponentially each day. It offers the perfect meeting place for brands to communicate with their audiences, get a sense of the public's pulse and respond to their reactions in time. The video illustrates the importance of social media PR and how it can be integrated into a brand's value propositions.

Blogging for dummies

With social media garnering the importance it already has, and other plaftorms that are being generated to harness this new medium, it's impossible for a PR practitioner to ignore one of the earliest ways of connecting with an audience: the BLOG. Blogging (and push-button publishing in itself) is so simple that kids from age 8 to geriatrics in their 80s are doing it. If you bear these tips in mind, you can not only create your own blog, but gather an audience around it as well. Most importantly, you can use it to influence opinions, generate comment and develop an expertise.

1. Why are you blogging: Defining the purpose your blog not only makes it clear about what you're going to write, but also helps create a unique voice for your blog. 
2. Audience: Like the fundamentals of any communication, ask yourself who's going to read this. 
3. Tone/style: Are you an expert, sharing your observations or making a comment? Clarifying this to yourself, and then posting will help set a style and tone for the content viewers will see on your blog. #
4. Original content: There's enough content floating around on the web on practically everthing under the sun and the rock too. So, ask yourself what am I saying that's really unique. Original content draws people to web pages like moths to a flame. 
5. SEO: When you have all these moths around your flame, it's hard for Google to ignore you. But in the odd case that it does, how to get its attenion? Keyword. Use labels/tags/keywords in your posts that will help Google index your blog on searches.  

For more information on blogging:

Blogging and video workshop

View more presentations from Matt holland.