ReadKevinRead.com

 
It’s a phrase I’ve heard a few times recently from senior colleagues in the PR industry. At first I was rather taken aback.
 
If you’re not experimenting, playing with it, understanding how it works, - then how can you be advising clients on how to use it.  
 
Slowly, it then dawned on me that many PR consultants prefer to stick closely to what they know.
 
That is ‘classic’ pr – or in other words good old fashion media relations conducted with print journalists they have known for years. Many clients still want and need this service but a narrowcast approach is no longer sufficient.
 
Some PR consultants have found themselves adopting a halfway house. They advise clients that digital and social media is another way to get pre-prepared messages out in a timely manner.  Sadly, this approach merely prolongs the attitude that PR is a one way communications method where response and engagement play no part.
 
Then there are the ‘new kids on the block’ promising all singing-all dancing social media programmes that bypass classic PR. In short they understand that conversations are taking place all the time and that the corporate world has little or no control over them.
 
Yet when you stand back from the digital and social media huff and puff two things become clear.
 
Firstly, media relations is here to stay (for the time being anyway) although journalists are now demanding more and more digital content and have many more places, such as twitter, to hunt for stories.
 
And secondly, PR consultants are just one of many groups chasing after digital and social media work. Those that can integrate classic PR with the new approaches stand the best chance of impressing as long as they are not seduced by the tactics and don’t ignore the need for a clear, deliverable strategy.
 
Battling with the new is always a challenge as is working out a suitable framework to explain the impact of social media. My own approach focuses on three key areas, that I label the 3Cs.    
 
Firstly, work out the communities you want to reach. Secondly, think about the type of content they want to consume. And lastly be prepared to start conversations.
 
And what better way to kick-start a conversation than with a tweet!  
 

There was a recent twitter exchange that revealed that one of the UK’s universities teaching PR did not cover selling skills; apparently because there was no demand.

This set me thinking about the role selling plays in the modern practice of PR, particularly from a consultancy perspective.

Every account executive at Bell Pottinger Business @ Brand, where I work, would be expected to accomplish two core tasks from early in their career, namely, securing media coverage and assisting with winning business.

For securing coverage executives would be expected to understand which journalists to target, pick up the phone to them and explain why a story is relevant for their publication and furnish them with relevant facts and opinions. In the business it is known as the sell-in although some call it pitching a journalist. What is clear is that it involves selling.

In supporting new business junior team members will be required to research core facts and insights that will appeal to prospects, pull together slides that illustrate the benefits of a campaign and on occasions stand up in front of a prospective client and make both rational and emotional appeals with a view to persuading them to buy a programme. Perhaps more commonly knows as pitching - it can not be accomplished without great selling skills.

The skills needed to sell-in and pitch have traditionally been learned on the job in consultancies and take many years to perfect (if ever). However, this should not preclude Universities teaching PR from looking at ways to explain and encourage the acquisition of selling skills. 

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from the legal world. The idea of participating in a mock trial - mooting - is widely practiced by barristers during their training period. Universities need to look at both holding mock pitches and to work closely with consultancies to understand why selling skills are vital.          

‘No time to tweet’ cried the classic PR  
 
It’s a phrase I’ve heard a few times recently from senior colleagues in the PR industry. At first I was rather taken aback.
 
If you’re not experimenting, playing with it, understanding how it works, - then how can you be advising clients on how to use it.  
 
Slowly, it then dawned on me that many PR consultants prefer to stick closely to what they know.
 
That is ‘classic’ pr – or in other words good old fashion media relations conducted with print journalists they have known for years. Many clients still want and need this service but a narrowcast approach is no longer sufficient.
 
Some PR consultants have found themselves adopting a halfway house. They advise clients that digital and social media is another way to get pre-prepared messages out in a timely manner.  Sadly, this approach merely prolongs the attitude that PR is a one way communications method where response and engagement play no part.
 
Then there are the ‘new kids on the block’ promising all singing-all dancing social media programmes that bypass classic PR. In short they understand that conversations are taking place all the time and that the corporate world has little or no control over them.
 
Yet when you stand back from the digital and social media huff and puff two things become clear.
 
Firstly, media relations is here to stay (for the time being anyway) although journalists are now demanding more and more digital content and have many more places, such as twitter, to hunt for stories.
 
And secondly, PR consultants are just one of many groups chasing after digital and social media work. Those that can integrate classic PR with the new approaches stand the best chance of impressing as long as they are not seduced by the tactics and don’t ignore the need for a clear, deliverable strategy.
 
Battling with the new is always a challenge as is working out a suitable framework to explain the impact of social media. My own approach focuses on three key areas, that I label the 3Cs.    
 
Firstly, work out the communities you want to reach. Secondly, think about the type of content they want to consume. And lastly be prepared to start conversations.
 
And what better way to kick-start a conversation than with a tweet!  
 

In many walks of life keeping to rules is regarded an acceptable, even at times rather staid, almost conservative approach to life.

Yet, with the recent furore over MPs expenses it seems that we have reached a point in our society where keeping to the rules is no longer de rigueur.

So how has this rather confusing situation come about?

It seems to me that the vast majority of MPs have actually kept very close to the letter of the expenses’ rules.

One or two may have over-stepped the mark and have been forced to take corrective action.

Yet what has caused the media and public angst is the willingness of many MPs from across the political spectrum to view expenses as a kind of ‘bonus payment’ for fulfilling their poorly paid parliamentary duties.

Equally, political attempts to prevent the disclosure of the details of the expenses has angered many and caused large numbers of the public to think that they have something to hide.

And from the recent revelations in the Telegraph perhaps they have a point.

Poorly handled attempts to correct the situation with toe-dipping YouTube films do not seem to have helped matters either.

Eventual public apologies from across Labour and Tory politicians came very late in the day and basically said that ‘keeping to the rules is no defence’.

Such public statements may ease the feelings of a hostile public but in turn they set a dangerous precedent that suggests that it is the spirit of the rules rather than the letter that is most important.

And possibly short-sighted in an increasingly transparent world where closer scrutiny of our politicians is being demanded and willingness to afford the benefit of the doubt no longer tolerated.

Often when I talk to people who have just joined the communications world I ask the simple question, what do you understand by the word brand?

Over the years the answers have been very different. Many people talk about logos, others latch onto the idea of corporate identities, some mention favourite products, while a few suggest that a brand is an intangible, emphasising it is something you definitely cannot touch.

I recently reflected on this array of answers as I was preparing for a FTSE 100 corporate affairs away day at which I had been asked to give my thoughts on modern brands.

And, you have guessed, it I was left to ask myself my own question – what is a brand?

I began by turning to one of my favourite definitions that suggests a brand is the sum of the experiences, attitudes and emotions that a consumer recalls after consuming a product or service.

However, as I reflected I did not think that this definition did full justice to the idea that the consumer also needs a mental framework against which to locate their brand experiences.

As I continued to think I tried to weave in all sorts of other considerations. I wanted to refer to how brand reactions were increasingly governed by ethical considerations and to take account of how many consumers are now resistant to receiving brand messages unless they have first sought them – the so called permission model.

But in short it all started to become both complicated and increasingly abstract.

Instead of adding layers I decided to return to the question of what is the fundamental relationship between the brand owner and the consumer.

In short the brand owner makes a proposition and the consumer receives it, albeit often in a highly fragmented way, and then decides how to respond and whether they wish to establish an on-going relationship.

An absence of a relationship clearly calls into question whether the intangible aspirations of the brand owner have been met. In essence, it is the consumer not the brand owner who is firmly in the driving seat.

For my talk last week I was able to condense my thinking into a single slide of six words which read: A BRAND IS A PROMISE KEPT

The word pandemic makes many of us immediately sit up.

Dark thoughts of the bubonic plague or avian flu run through our minds as we think of hundreds of thousands of people ill, and possibly dying, caught by unsuspecting and fatal circumstances.

Thankfully our deep fears about the possible effects of swine flu have not fully surfaced in Western Europe.

The relative remoteness of Latin America, and the small number of cases here in the UK, many of which are less serious than those in Mexico, mean that our worse worries have not surfaced.

Meanwhile the PR machines of many European Governments are dishing out advice on using tissues and cleaning surfaces. This makes us feel that some immediate preventative action can be taken.

Furthermore we have had reassurances, in the UK at least, that the flu bug is treatable and that millions of doses of vaccine are sitting in warehouses ready for rapid distribution.

Against this backdrop the media has behaved very responsibly. The careful balance of reporting the story, indicating the risks and trying to avoid undue panic has been achieved.

Yet, slowly and surely we are beginning to see the wider consequences of the worries about the pandemic.

Travel companies are facing many cancelled Mexican holidays, leading corporates are grounding senior executives from flying and the World Health Organisation keeps upgrading the crisis.

But, as I understand the situation, the real threat of swine flu is more sinister. Microbiologists are suggesting that it is perfectly possible for a flu bug to lie dormant for many months. This was the case in 1968 and there was a considerable gap between it being first identified and re-emerging as a deadly pandemic.

And my fear is that if a strong strain of Swine flu resurfaces in the depths of the winter the reaction of our media will be less considered.

An ‘It’s back’ media outcry will innevitably unleash many of our dark fears about a pandemic that have so far been well contained.

As a child I lived in Hamilton Close. At school I learnt that Hamilton was a small town outside Glasgow. And on a history field trip to the HMS Victory in Portsmouth learnt about Nelson’s tangled love-life with Lady Hamilton.

Hamilton has therefore cropped up in many guises during my life. Yet in the last 24 months the name has emerged as a ‘symbol of hope’ for a generation of young people.

The F1 driver, Lewis Hamilton, carefully nurtured by Ron Dennis of McLaren, emerged in his rookie F1 season as a breath of fresh air in what otherwise has been seen as a rather elitist, and at times dull sport. The dedication of his father and his calm, youthful, clean living image shone like a bright beacon for the sport.

Missing the world championship by one point helped to create a stronger brand full of hope and honesty. A year later, as a world champion, Hamilton had become one of the most powerful brands in sport; his reputation unblemished.

Such reputations are rare. In modern times one thinks of perhaps Tiger Woods but few others fit the frame. In any event such reputations need to be cherished and carefully nurtured.

Then standing before the stewards after the Melbourne Grand Prix Hamilton’s reputational spell was broken. Following team orders, he gave an account of an overtaking incident on the track that did not tie-up with evidence from radio conversations that were later to emerge.

Within days it became clear that the story given to the stewards was not wholly accurate. The media were not shy to raise questions about the integrity of the driver and the McLaren team. A deathly silence from Hamilton followed and the reputation so quickly earned started to crumble. Disqualification from the Melbourne Grand Prix followed, senior heads at McLaren rolled and the prospect of further punishment for the team looms.

McLaren would have done well to remember the main lesson from Watergate. Namely that attempting to cover up (or mislead) after an embarrassing (or negative) event can result in outcomes far worse than if the original act was confessed to.

For a PR practitioner who discovers details relating to an issue that have been deliberately withheld there are really only two main courses of action. Refuse to continue working in an environment that does not value honesty and the need for trust. Or head for the mea culpa option and pursue immediate disclosure. And, where necessary, apologise.

Whether it is the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire - or Reggie Perrin – reputations are difficult to build and even harder to sustain. Now, can I remember when I first learned to fasten a Button?

Preparing carefully before talking to the media is an important corporate insurance policy. Reputations can easily be damaged by poor or ineffectual media appearances, especially when a difficult or controversial subject is being dealt with.

In many ways the traditional approach of preparing questions and answers and learning lines or sound bites is a very inflexible way to handle a hostile journalist.

A mental scramble for a pre-prepared answer is a clumsy process and will often come across as lacking in spontaneity. It can also produce high degrees of anxiety if the answer cannot be recalled perfectly.

A far better approach is to coach potential spokespeople on what their story should be and to look at the core components of the narrative. This gives a more natural feeling and allows an interviewee to frame answers in a more easy-going and personal way.

However, we are not born with the ability to construct appropriate narratives, although some people may be natural story tellers.

Handling the pressure of the studio interview, knowing what it feels like to be on the mental ropes, and coping with the unexpected are all skills that need to be learned and rehearsed.

Equally, appreciating the need to balance effectively emotional appeals and rational arguments is not a skill that needs to be learnt.

The commonest error that corporate spokespeople who are untrained make is failing to keep to the topics they intended to talk about.

In most situations a trained interviewer will always have the upper hand because they do interviews day-in-day-out and know the tricks of the trade. It is true that occasionally a talented amateur may fair well but why take the risk with your organisation’s reputation.

It is only with careful preparation, ideally one-to-one coaching, that an interviewee can help reverse the odds that are stacked against them.

Yet an afternoon’s rehearsal around a pre-agreed narrative will never be sufficient to guarantee a subsequent stellar performance.

There is only way sure way of becoming an excellent corporate performer and that is practice.

I recently read an article that suggested persuasion verged on the edge of an unethical act for a public relations practitioner.

To be honest I was rather taken aback.

Let’s imagine for one moment me trying to practice PR in an influence neutral way. Where would I start? Perhaps by gathering verifiable facts and assembling them in a media notice for journalists. Then what?

Well perhaps I need to find an ethical way of distributing them and ensuring that every journalist who may have an interest in my story receives an email.

Then I should sit back. Let the journalist decide on the story and then wait for feedback from readers and viewers. I think not.

It strikes me that too many observers, often including the academic PR community, struggle to accept that accurate facts and opinions can be arranged in many different ways and styles such that they have differing levels of influence.

The ability to carefully craft a media story for a journalist is an art. Yet let’s be clear that the ultimate aim is not just to neutrally inform but to try to stimulate interest and dare I say persuade a journalist to cover a story at the very least in a balanced manner.

It is sometimes hard in a modern world that is fixated with the need for two way dialogue to appreciate that persuasion always takes place within a conversation.

Others of us equally feel with a good modern grasp of psychology that we can filter out the sophistry of style over content and make clear rational decisions.

Interestingly, recent studies in neuroscience are suggesting that our emotions are very likely to influence our rational thought and that we are in need of dismantling the models of rational ‘man’ constructed by Descartes and others.

But let’s be clear, making an honest argument, irrespective of how it is constructed, will never be unethical unless of course you wish to suggest that the problem lies with the making of the argument rather than the content.

Over the coming months this blog will look at topical issues in public relations and provide a practitioner’s perspective.

And an integral part of this discourse will involve drawing from a range of other disciplines including, psychology, neuroscience and advertising research to help broaden the perspective of the PR profession.