On some issues of heavy consequence in the public relations profession, it sometimes helps to take a step back and watch the dialogue unfold before formulating an opinion.  I had been doing just that on the Susan G. Komen / Planned Parenthood controversy – until today.  Now, it all seems crystal-clear.

Like everyone else, I saw the maelstrom unfold last week throughout the media.  The manner in which the story broke and how the Komen organization reacted with a policy about-face – followed by tough criticism (“they caved!”) – provides a public relations case study that will live in textbooks throughout the next decade. 

An interesting part about it to me, though, is that different public relations professionals are drawing diverse conclusions about who’s right, who’s wrong, and what the real lessons are relative to brand, reputation and effective organizational decision-making. 

One of my PRSA colleagues, Michael Cherenson, APR, Fellow PRSA, posted an entry on the Public Relations Society of America‘s national blog, “Who Really Owns the Komen Brand?”  In it, Mike makes some spot-on observations about the nature of brand advocacy.  He also poses a critical question in his title.  

I disagree, however, with the direction of his conclusion, in which he seems to indicate that Komen simply made a bad decision to no longer support Planned Parenthood, leaving a majority of former Komen supporters feeling betrayed and turning on the brand.  

To me, the answer of who owns the Komen brand – or at least who seized ownership of it last week – is quite simple:  Planned Parenthood.  

It’s Planned Parenthood’s own brand advocates, in my view, who mounted nothing short of a hostile takeover of the Komen brand in order to railroad their message – and their way – with absolute political genius . . . the notion of tying the breast cancer prevention issue intrinsically with women’s reproductive rights vis-à-vis Komen’s prior financial support of Planned Parenthood, with a deep inference that the two cannot be separated.  

In the face of Komen rescinding its funding, Planned Parenthood made an exceptionally swift, underlying case that Komen was turning its back on women.   And the media ate it up with a spoon, as Planned Parenthood well-knew they would.  The Komen folks didn’t know what hit them, with almost total deer-in-the-headlights confusion as to the messaging subterfuge overtaking their reputation. 

I have to ask the question, was it really Komen donors who were posting all those “Never will I give again!” messages on Facebook, or was it the Planned Parenthood Army?  We’ll see what the coming days of analysis into the Internet record bears out. 

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal posted an editorial late last night that gives a far better reality-based assessment of Komen’s rationale for its original decision:

“Planned Parenthood has been and is under congressional and criminal investigation (by attorneys general, local prosecutors and various regulatory agencies in Arizona, Indiana, Alabama, Kansas and Texas) for allegations including failure to report criminal child sex abuse, misuse of health-care and family-planning funds, and failure to comply with parental-involvement laws regarding abortions. . . . It is easy to see why Komen might not wish to be associated with Planned Parenthood. Fighting breast cancer is something all Americans can and do agree on; promoting and performing abortions is something that divides us bitterly.” 

In short, there are two sides to this issue, and Komen’s side got completely hijacked. 

Another colleague of mine posted an essay yesterday that, to me, spoke with a great deal of clarity about the real issue at hand for Komen: lack of conviction. 

With characteristic aplomb, Susan Hart, APR, wrote, “Last week’s nightmare of ‘they fund us, they fund us not’ isn’t about funding at all. It’s about who the Susan G. Komen Foundation is. It’s about the organization’s values, priorities and purpose. It’s the up close and personal part of branding that decidedly determines who you are and what you stand for regardless of public sentiment.  And therein lies the multi-level problem for this pink-until-you-puke group.”

Love it. 

And she’s absolutely right. 

Some of the best insights we’ve integrated into our clients’ communications strategies have come from input gathered in focus groups.

Several of our client projects of late – including those in the sciences, healthcare, education and professional services – have involved conducting focus groups as a basis of research for communications campaigns.

Generally, focus groups involve gathering a manageable grouping of people together – usually 8-12 – to have an interactive conversation about a certain company, industry, issue and/or other topic, all for the purpose of gaining valuable insights that can’t be answered thoroughly with a closed-ended survey question. 

The real value of focus groups includes:

• Hearing verbatim feedback straight from the source – It means a lot to hear directly from individual customers, prospective customers, employees, referral sources or other key audiences exactly what they think . . . and in their own words. 
• Digging deep with exploratory questions that get to the heart of big issues – Probing into the “how’s” and “why’s” of complicated challenges helps clients understand the real experiential motivators behind why stakeholders think and behave as they do. 
• Getting the big-picture snapshot of topics that can then be researched quantitatively – Prior to any major survey research project, we generally recommend focus group work on the front end to make sure a survey truly evaluates quantitatively the most relevant and germane issues (not just what the client thinks may be the issues). 

If a research budget is fairly conservative – and not enough to fund a quantitative survey – then focus group research can provide a great alternative for data to make sure a campaign gets started on exactly the right track, particularly with good recruitment methodologies.  

Keep focus groups in mind as you’re thinking through the best way to “crack the nut” on insights you need to plan your next big campaign. 

What have we learned about learning? My cousin, Dr. Phil Cusick, professor emeritus at Michigan State University, recently published an interesting book on learning – A Passion for Learning: The Education of Seven Eminent Americans.

His book researched a number of leading Americans and tried to determine how and what they learned in early life, translated into how they managed their later lives and drove the decisions they made. (Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin were two of the individuals he studied.)

The people he reviewed were all types of learners. Some were intuitive learners. Others learned by rote. Others learned from experience.

These people mirrored society in general, as you would expect.

As communicators, we try to tap into how people learn, whether they are intuitive, rote or experiential learners. Mostly, we rely on rote in our communications. “Tell’em once. Tell’em again. And, tell’em one more time.” This was one of my Ithaca College communications instructor’s favorite sayings.

This type of learning is the bedrock of the integrated campaign. Devise your message and deliver it in as many different communications channels as your budget will allow. Rote learning is still fundamental to traditional forms of communications (TV, radio, print, etc.).

The rise of social media coupled with miniaturization has improved dramatically experiential learning. Daily we can visit any number of social media sites and experience “The Arab Spring/Summer.” We are learning first-hand how Libyans and Syrians are struggling against oppressive regimes in the Middle East, thanks to small still and video cameras. There are countless other examples of how these new media tools and technology are being used to promote products and services.

Finally, intuitive learners are the most interesting of learners. Somehow they just know. They can make learning leaps with very little information. Marconi. Einstein. These are just some of history’s intuitive learners. I have always been puzzled on how to communicate with an intuitive learner. I guess they just get it, very quickly.

It happens about once or twice a year, it seems:  one of the most prominent multinational public relations firms is exposed for unethical practices, and the whole profession is faced with yet another perceptual mess to clean up about how public relations should be conducted without resorting to sleight-of-hand.

This past week, it was Burson-Marsteller’s work for Facebook, where according to The Wall Street Journal’s initial report, “Facebook hired (Burson-Marsteller) to try to plant stories harshly criticizing Google’s privacy practices. The efforts backfired when the firm approached a blogger who not only declined the assignment, but also went public with the exchange.”

The ethics breach hinges on Burson-Marsteller’s alleged failure to disclose the client’s identity behind their efforts, which runs opposed to the Public Relations Society of America’s Code of Ethics “disclosure of information” provision.

The provision states as its intent to “build trust with the public by revealing all information needed for responsible decision-making,” and that “revealing the sponsors for causes and interests represented” is a requirement.

From the reports I’ve seen, it appears Burson-Marsteller’s management is passing the buck, indicating that the strategy employed for its client came as a result of “Facebook (requesting) that its identity remain secret,” and that Burson-Marsteller “admits that violates its own policies” – inferring that perhaps some rogue element within the firm went off the reservation to do a client’s nefarious bidding.  As of late this past week, Burson-Marsteller and Facebook have parted ways, not surprisingly.

I myself am a Harold Burson Summer Internship alumnus through the firm’s New York office in the early 1990s, and while I remain grateful to Burson-Marsteller for the learning opportunities I received, this incident just irks me, and I’m sure I’m not the only one with previous or current company ties who feels that way.

For well more than half a century, Harold Burson himself – now in his 90s and a fellow native of Tennessee – has been a stalwart proponent of what I consider to be the profession’s most noble aims and ethics-based best practices.  His fierce intellect and thought leadership continue to provide some of the greatest sources of direction to the entire profession.  I can only imagine that it frustrates him a great deal to witness this incident.  Members of the internal team involved in the Facebook account might be reminded to have some respect for the man whose name is on the door.

So on to my point:

Public relations firms of all types, from the locally based or boutique level (like mine) to the multinationals, should be setting the examples of best ethical practices, because the media spotlight scrutinizes these companies the most, driven by their volume of work.  And of course, the larger the firm, the more intense the spotlight.

When any single firm makes a clear-cut ethical misstep – particularly one resulting in the level of media attention driven by a behemoth like Facebook – it reflects poorly on the profession as well as the entire agency sector.  Further, it sets back efforts to achieve long-term public and business-community understanding about the critical role of ethics in communications strategy.

This reality should factor into every agency’s own ethics policy, and agency employees at all levels should understand the implications for themselves, their firms and the profession itself if they veer away from the basic standards put forth by the PRSA Code of Ethics.

On a final note, agencies must demonstrate some backbone when dealing with any client that suggests (or mandates) a strategy or tactic that doesn’t pass the smell test.  Claiming “My client made me do it!” is downright lame and demonstrates no serious commitment on an agency’s part to keep their ethics m.o. in check. 

If an agency is in business long enough, and certainly if it employs scores, hundreds or thousands of people, mistakes in judgment will happen.  I’ve made a fair share of mistakes in my own career, particularly in the very early years.  Recovery from mistakes is possible if one takes a serious approach, such as we would advise a client in any crisis.

I hope that internally within Burson-Marsteller, this situation will result in a silver lining with renewed management-to-front-line awareness-building and practical focus that is in keeping with The Harold Burson Way.

By Joe Bogardus

Invariably, when I am talking to a native of Tennessee, especially in the communications field, the question is posed: “So, how did you find this place?”

And, invariably, I will report how my wife and I discovered East Tennessee at a Live South real estate show. How I read about the area in Money magazine and learned about its vibrancy and natural beauty by checking out the different websites for industries, realtors and attractions.

All of these are public relations and advertising activities. All of these factors influenced my wife and me to visit the area and eventually move our household to suburban Knoxville.

We built a new house and furnished it. We have bought one new car and will need another one in a year or two. We joined a church. We volunteered in community and professional organizations. We have paid our property, sales and Halls taxes. We have had an impact on this local economy and not some other local economy.

But, we never would have come to Tennessee if we had not gone to that Live South show – a public relations activity. It’s a great example of how good public relations tactics can benefit and expand local business.

We are just one household. Thousands of other households have been transplanted to Tennessee in the past decade, and good public relations has played a role in bringing these individuals and their resources to the state.

Tennessee has much to offer to people of all ages and varying skill sets. We need to keep getting the word out. Individual local economies and the state overall will be the beneficiaries.

By Mary Beth West, APR

With our blog focus this month on PR and the power of the relationship (it having been Valentine’s and all), we couldn’t help but notice in recent weeks the headline about Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) airport screeners’ successful efforts to unionize.  While we recognize and respect unions’ right to advocate for the interests of their memberships, a primary rationale for the start-up of this particular one, as put forth by TSA chief John Pistole, leaves us bewildered about the means to the end.

According to his quote in the February 5-6 hard copy of The Wall Street Journal: “The safety of the traveling public is our top priority and we will not negotiate on security. But morale and employee engagement cannot be separated from achieving superior security.”

Note to Washington: There’s more than one way to skin a cat.  When it comes to developing employee morale and engagement, there are far more efficient ways to achieve those outcomes.

As if the TSA doesn’t have enough public scrutiny and criticism bearing down on it between the pat-down / scanner uproar of several months ago, the agency now seems to be inviting a whole new onslaught of public frustration about whether the TSA is all about nimble expedition of safety and security, or, more about job and wage/benefits protection for its government employees.

If employee morale and engagement is the end game, then we’d like to offer a far more streamlined solution: a substantive program of employee communications and internal team relationship-building.  Such a program can be implemented at a fraction of the cost and, if executed well, can produce the desired benefits with none of the negative down-side. 

It’s another example of how the public relations profession offers efficient business solutions through smart, relationship-driven programs . . . and case study upon case study proves that employee communications work in powerful ways to solidify a focused, productive workforce. 

The work of the TSA is critically important to the safety and well-being of our citizens.  Those employees certainly deserve respect and to have every advantage associated with a fair workplace. 

While the TSA seems to have charted its course on this issue, we hope other government agencies working at all levels within this country will make more effective use of public relations strategies and tools to achieve their goals, for internal and external audiences alike.

By Amy Schwinge, MAOM

It seems you don’t hear as much from the media and in general conversation about the recession and economy lately as you did just a year ago.  I view that as a step in the right direction.  However, the economy still is a concern for many people and businesses alike. 

There is a lot of chatter about the “New Normal” when it comes to the economy.

You may ask, “What is the ‘New Normal?’” Deloitte and Harrison Group summarized their recent consumer research describing the “New Normal” as follows:

“Today’s consumers are, in a word, resourceful. Their shopping is, in a word, precise. They are using tactical tools and capabilities they have to perform better in the marketplace: coupons, loyalty cards, meal planning, shopping lists, delayed gratification, lowered standards (although not as often as one might think), brand switching, channel switching, store switching, cooking more, eating out less, buying fewer prepared meals, clarifying want versus need, reassessing convenience, larger packages, smaller packages, and more.

“They feel their personal economic challenges have been challenges well met – their confidence has risen as a result. In short, cutting back has made them feel smart, not deprived, and they have no intention of returning to old habits even when the economy returns.”

I think the same can be said for businesses in their communications efforts.

According to the High-Tech Communicator, in “the ‘New Normal’ economy . . . despite economists’ claims that we’re undergoing a recovery, the high jobless rate means that many consumers don’t see any economic improvement. That means customers are saving more and spending less. These consumer actions have translated into a fitful recovery. Thus, while many companies want to invest in growing their business, at the same time, many want to keep their expenses in line and improve profitability. Marketers must respond by helping cautious customers make a strong financial case for their products.”                       

How do you make a strong financial case for a business or product? With any communications plan, proper research needs to be conducted to assess the situation and determine the proper strategy, as each case is different. 

The bottom line is that the strategy must meet the financial needs of both the business and its consumers/audience.

By Mary Beth West, APR

Today’s the day: November 2. 

By the start-up of this evening’s election returns, all the folks who live their lives in politics or in the heady realm of political reporting will be reaching for oxygen.  The rest of us on the media consumer side, who strapped on our masks months ago for survival’s sake, may have passed out anyway from campaign overkill.  Talk about relentless. 

In the face of acknowledging what’s been a pretty mean campaign season, I still can’t complain too much without feeling hypocritical. 

In the communications profession, I think we’re professionally bound to the principle of embracing the maelstrom for what it is – the marketplace of ideas . . . only in this marketplace, the clean-up needed on Aisle 4 is spread out all over every square foot of real estate, thanks to the changing face of media.  But this is America – we can handle it.  Mark it up to the rising cost of doing business.

Maybe it’s cynicism on my part, but for all the fretting and bemoaning we generate about the ugliness of politics these days, I’m not sure what realistic alternative people want when you have highly imperfect human beings fighting for competing ideologies that they’re willing to stake everything on as the correct path for a country they love and believe in. 

Or, for whatever a politician’s or a campaign’s motives and tactics may be, I’m not sure how we neatly package the field of debate into what people say they want it to be (i.e. “respectful discourse”) when every venue – from local town halls to FOX’s vs. MSNBC’s evening program formats and associated ratings – tell a very different story. 

We talk about the acidity of politics as being a huge turn-off to people . . . but doesn’t the psychological reality suggest otherwise – that the bigger the fight, the more people will tune in to engage with it?  I’m not advocating that politics go the way of Jerry Springer or that we not keep the issue of ethics front-and-center whenever candidates or campaigns stray from truth and accuracy.  However, I think that some people may need to recalibrate their understanding of what politics really is about in this day and age and configure their expectations accordingly.

I loved George Will’s dose of reality – which every week I could just eat with a spoon – on this past Sunday’s “This Week with Christiane Amanpour”:

“Gridlock is not an American problem – it is an American achievement.  The framers of our Constitution didn’t want an efficient government . . . they wanted a safe government, to which end they filled it with slowing and blocking mechanisms:  three branches of government, two branches of the legislative branch, a veto, veto-override, super-majority, judicial review . . . When we have gridlock, the system is working.”    

So goes the field of political debate as well, in my view.  If it ain’t ugly, it ain’t working.  So pull up your waders and walk to the polls – it’s a trek well-worth making in this imperfect process, which I’ll take any day of the week compared to the alternatives.

By Mary Beth West, APR

It recent years, it’s not been uncommon for our clients in the governmental space to push back on the idea of using social media and interactive tools as part of recommended communications programs.

The “uncontrolled” aspect or potential of social media is an intimidating prospect for any organization – but much more so for governmental entities that largely exist by highly controlled regulations, processes and procedures.

More and more, though, it seems that managers working in the public sector are utilizing online communications to meet their objectives, particularly when engaging external audiences with very defined information needs.

For the past year, we’ve worked with a government-affiliated sciences program, and have navigated through the parameters of what their organization can and cannot do per federal guidelines.  It has been an interesting learning process for our team.  We’ve also been encouraged and impressed by the level of openness that this client has shown toward exploring interactive options.

Recently, I came across the website of the Federal Web Managers Council, “an interagency group of senior federal government web managers who collaborate to share common challenges, ideas, and best practices, and improve the online delivery of U.S. Government information and services.”

If you work in a government agency, you might want to check it out for ideas and guidance – particularly if your agency is just starting out with a program of using more interactive / two-way communications tools. 

We also welcome your questions if you need more specialized assistance.  Our collaboration as part of Interactive Springboard currently helps diverse clients in the public and private sectors with creating and managing effective online communications.

Some companies overlook the importance of a key audience: their employees.  This week’s post will focus on how the employee communications aspect of public relations impacts a company’s bottom line. 

Believe it or not, shareholder returns for organizations with the most effective employee communications were 29 percent higher from 2002-2006 than firms with less effective communications, according to a recent Watson Wyatt study. 

A great deal of research has been conducted related to how employee communications really affects a company’s bottom line.  You would think that common sense would say that well-informed employees would be more productive than less-informed employees, similar to how happy employees are more productive.  Surprisingly, many organizations fail to grasp that wisdom and put it into actionable results.

I had the opportunity to work with T.J. and Sandar Larkin (her name is really Sandar; this is not a typo) when I worked at Boeing and at General Motors.  The Larkins have conducted decades of research on how employee communications impacts productivity and the bottom line. 

I particularly remember how their research showed that rumors negatively affect the bottom line.  Usually, rumors run rampant when there is a lack of information or major uncertainty within an organization.

At Boeing and GM, internal communication was tracked as an organizational scorecard metric that was based on the results of employee surveys.  These metrics measured if employees were aware of key messages in addition to employee perceptions.

Since employees serve as ambassadors for an organization (however formal or informal that role might be), they should know the company’s vision, mission and key objectives.  In addition, employees should be communicated with first regarding a major change, or they should at least have access to information at the same time as media are notified. 

Forbes.com recently reported on the results of an employee survey that found 87 percent of employees thought organizational communications were one-sided and focused on positive information. 

With that statistic in mind, two-way communications processes must be included in the communications strategy. Organizations must remember that it is imperative to listen to – not just talk “at” – employees and take action to respond to employee concerns as appropriate.  Also, the good, the bad and the ugly still needs to be communicated openly and accurately – not swept under the rug.

“Keeping it real” in terms of responding in a sincere and authentic way to employee concerns will boost management’s credibility with internal stakeholders, and in the process, facilitate employees’ trust in their employer and positive attitudes toward employees’ role in the company’s success. 

So, the final take-away here: remember your employees!  Communicate with them AND listen to them; act when appropriate.  It will only help your bottom line…