Posts Tagged ‘Public Relations’

Path to #PR: Q&A with @marybethwest

Friday, May 11th, 2012

Kicking it off with Mary Beth West, we’re sharing experiences from all of our staff about their career paths in PR – and a few other fun things, too!  Enjoy . . .

What was your first job?  What did you learn from it?

Working in the shoe department of my hometown’s local department store. 

I learned that everyone should have some type of work experience early in their lives that is directly customer-facing.  It’s a big eye-opener to how people really tick, and it creates a level of appreciation for any person in a customer-service job. 

Did your collegiate life prepare you for your current job? 

Absolutely.  The University of Tennessee College of Communication & Information provided a terrific foundation.  It so happens that everyone in my company is a product of UT-Knoxville as well.  We’ve stayed very involved there.

Why did you choose public relations as your career?

I knew at age 16 or 17 that a career in communications was where I wanted to be, but I wasn’t sure of the exact path.  I later learned that among communications professions such as advertising, broadcasting, journalism, speech communications, etc., public relations appealed to me as holding the greatest game-changing potential in society . . . the idea of being able to apply communications in a direct way to help people, businesses and organizations achieve success.  That’s what PR is all about.

Who has had the greatest impact on your professional career?

My parents.  They made my college education possible, and they demonstrated by example the commitment of being a business owner.

If you weren’t in this field, what else could you see yourself doing?  

I would enjoy being a writer – maybe a political columnist.  Politically, I’m a weird bird, which makes for interesting writing as well as audience reactions. 

What is your favorite quote?

Margaret Thatcher:  “Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.”

If you could have one superhero power, what would it be?

The ability to be in five places at once would come in handy.  As a rule, I would love for one of those places to be cuddled up with my kids reading stories and taking naps. 

What is your biggest pet peeve?

Poor editing, especially when I’m the one guilty of it.

What was the funniest thing you have ever experienced?

Back in college, I took a conference trip to New York with a bunch of my PRSSA friends, and we made the obligatory trek to the top of the Empire State Building.  In the gift shop, they had these foam Statue of Liberty crowns and silly sunglasses, which I stuck on my head and raised up my right hand stoically as if I were holding the torch – and we all got our picture together, just goofing off. 

Suddenly – out of nowhere – every tourist in the gift shop swarmed over to get their picture taken with me posing as the Statue of Liberty . . . most of them speaking foreign languages.  At least a dozen strangers had their picture taken with me, most of them insisting I hold my arm up like I was Lady Liberty bearing the torch. 

Twenty years later, across the globe, there are probably pictures of me in people’s scrapbooks with the caption (translated to English): “Visiting Empire State Bldg with weird American chick wearing WAY too much red.”  If smartphones had been around back then, I would have had my 15 minutes of fame in 1993.

Any embarrassing professional moments you’re willing to share?

Apart from the Statue of Liberty thing, no.

 

 

Get Out of the Kitchen if You Can’t Take the Heat: PR’s Home Makeover Challenge; #PR; #publicrelations; #discourse; #civility

Sunday, April 1st, 2012

By Mary Beth West, APR

A favorite saying in the South famously goes, “Get out of the kitchen if you can’t take the heat.” 

For my great-grandmother, who for decades prepared from scratch three hulking meals daily for about a dozen farmhands with all the modern conveniences a 1930s/40s kitchen would allow, it indeed got hot from the relentless burn of a wood-fired stove.  Way hot.  Especially in the Middle Tennessee August growing season with no AC or ceiling fans. 

Whoever wanted to bend my Grandmother Butler’s ear with a complaint, a request or any other idle chit-chat that could waste her valuable time generally had to venture to the kitchen to do it, and hence her love of that old expression.

Fast-forward six or seven decades: the kitchens of the modern world are much cooler and calmer places these days, but the heat still burns in a more figurative application of the phrase, in the forum of public dialogue. 

The kitchen (of sorts) is still there: our interconnectedness through media of vastly diversifying forms provides a place where all kinds of news-reporting and idea-sharing are cooked up – though some not even half-baked, I might add –and served to a global population. 

Thermal heat has been replaced with the heat of emotionally charged opinion, often hitting fever-pitches that stoke feelings of anger and hate between entire populations of people.   

The lines between genuine fact-focused news reporting and unapologetically opinionated editorial are blurred beyond much hope of their sponsoring media organizations ever getting a grip on reality.

The heat is on alright, and often times – I must admit – I can’t take it.  The thumb hits the “off” button, and I’m back to calmer places, back to sanity.  

It’s a real downer.  This isn’t the way it has to be.  With all the potential that media offer today to educate, enlighten and inspire, what most consistently rises to the top are the most shrill, most  misguided and most purposefully destructive voices, viewpoints and personalities. 

A retired Knoxville, Tennessee educator, Sandra D. Cannon, wrote an insightful op-ed piece in The Knoxville News Sentinel this past weekend, describing in an exceptionally well-balanced way her disappointment in how public debate has evolved, from the formats of traditional media to the likes of Limbaugh and Maher.  Read it 

As a substitute teacher now, Ms. Cannon sees the vitriol in today’s classrooms daily, not only in students arguing among one another but also in arguing with her

The outcomes can be seen every day.  Neither many students nor the grown-ups who should know better seem to care about learning or embracing the tools of a thoughtful, productive and well-measured point/counterpoint exchange – one that doesn’t quickly decline into mudslinging of the worst Jerry-Springer kind.   

Amid the muck, the public relations profession represents two faces: first, as part of the machine that’s positioning and protecting the voices that are most contributing to the madness; but then secondly, as a professional discipline that offers an abundance of methodologies, creativity and know-how to make education, enlightenment and inspiration surrounding critical issues a reality.

Toward that second point, the power of organizations like the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and its tens of thousands of individual members offer a great deal of talent and expertise.  While a wholesale shift in the status quo probably can’t happen, many folks would agree: the quality of debate in this country has fewer places to go but up. 

They say that a kitchen make-over always contributes back the most value to a home. 

Across the spectrum of public discourse, the public relations profession should turn up a different kind of heat in the kitchen – one generated by a full-on makeover that helps brings out better communication for better outcomes – and in the process, increases the value of the media home we all inhabit.

 

PRSA “Public Relations” Definition Could Go One Step Further; #prdefined

Monday, March 12th, 2012

By Mary Beth West, APR

As a profession, public relations has historically beaten out most others in living up to the old saying, “the cobbler has no shoes.”

So goes the reality that the profession has struggled for decades with achieving accurate perceptions of what public relations is and what we in the profession actually do for a living.

The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) took on the challenge anew with an effort formally entitled “Public Relations Defined” to create a universal definition of public relations. 

PRSA National Chair / CEO Gerard Corbett, APR, Fellow PRSA, did a terrific job framing the need for this effort in his kick-off to the initiative earlier this year.

PRSA’s members worldwide were invited to submit their ideas and recommendations for the best-crafted definition and to vote on a final draft.

The chosen winner:

“Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.”

While I like this definition especially for its simplicity, I would like it even more if within the definition it answered the question, “To what end?”

If PRSA could tack on a simple phrase at the conclusion, “to achieve business objectives,” it would strike more solid resonance with CEOs and other leaders / management functions that public relations’ value is all about making the entities we serve holistically successful.

Apart from this criticism – which I only intend in a constructive way – I have to hand it to them:  Hats off to PRSA and the many leaders involved in this effort for taking on this project.  The time had certainly come to revise PRSA’s previously adopted definition from 1982:

“Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.”

If that phrase didn’t automatically trigger a bout of narcolepsy for you, I will hasten to point out that it’s great in 2012 to operate in a profession that self-describes itself as more than just a helper, and more so, that we’re not entrenched in some curious sociological exercise of “adapt(ing) mutually,” a concept which one would more likely read about in National Geographic than Harvard Business Review.  Who on earth would pay a decent monthly retainer for that little deliverable? 

Final thought: as someone who has been involved in the past in PRSA’s national advocacy efforts for the profession, it’s my hope that all of PRSA’s members will do their own part to represent and to communicate to others what we do – in all its expansive diversity of scope and impact – in a way that is worthy of the strongest ideals. 

It’s not PRSA’s job alone.  It should play a role in the life’s work of each of us.

Susan G. Komen and the PR Profession’s Post-Mortem Race for a Clue

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

By Mary Beth West, APR 

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. 

What Does the Future Hold for PR in 2012?

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

By Amy Schwinge, MAOM

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a crystal ball that could predict the future? Crystal ball or not—you can’t talk about the future of public relations without including social media.

PR really has changed a great deal just during my 17-plus years in the field. I remember working as an intern preparing news releases for distribution via only snail mail and fax (gasp!).

Now, you cannot conduct a successful PR campaign without some aspect of social media unless you want to miss a huge opportunity.

Like anything else, I think the key to remaining viable and successful is continuous improvement and reinventing yourself when necessary.

Nick Sherwin, one of my former management professors, always said, “Adapt to change or die.” Of course he was referring to a company or organization and not speaking literally, but his tagline always stood out to me and is relevant to the social media invasion of recent years.

I think any profession, including PR, must strive to continuously improve or something else better will come along and pass you by.

Author and CEO of Advanced Human Technologies Ross Dawson describes his take on the future of the PR industry (http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2011/09/revisiting-the-future-of-pr.html).

Dawson said, “Those that re-conceive their role and potential impact could well be masters of the universe…The continually emerging opportunities in a world of ever-unfolding public communication are still there to be seized. Let’s see if the PR industry – or others – best take them.”

My vote is for PR, but of course I am biased!

PR Myth-Busting on Measurement, Message and the Whole Idea of Control

Friday, October 28th, 2011

By Mary Beth West, APR

This past month, our team has talked about some common misperceptions about public relations. 

I’ll wrap up that theme by poking holes into three long-held myths that most public relations professionals encounter with some regularity, regardless of where they work.

 MYTH:  Relationships aren’t measurable. 

 REALITY:  There are few excuses companies use more not to invest in public relations, and it’s flat-out wrong.  If measurement is what you want – and, logically, most organizations do – the profession is burgeoning with tools to gauge audience awareness, attitudes, opinions and behaviors that result directly from public relations initiatives and take a company from Point A to Point B.

The key is to invest in the tools that actually provide the measurement components, and that’s where so many companies and organizations fall short.  Yes, they want it, but they don’t want to pay for it — a common conundrum.  Getting to the real value proposition of what measurement offers — not only as a way of knowing what works but also understanding how to improve — is what can sell it best.

Another point: public relations efforts are more marathon than sprint.  Genuine trust-building and reputation development don’t simply happen in a six-week blitz campaign.  Whether short-term or multi-phased, however, public relations programs worth their salt integrate some level of results tracking.

MYTH:  The message is all that matters.

REALITY:  Behavior and intent matter more.  “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” doesn’t cut it anymore in our uber-transparent society, where every veil is so easily lifted by the power of social media.  And in truth, I’ve long advocated that any company lacking the guts to have the true intent of its decision-making laid bare to public scrutiny wasn’t a company I wanted to work with – and I still feel that way.  It helps me sleep at night.

Messages are indeed critical, and in public relations, we are certainly in the business of advocating for our clients with clear, effective messages that resonate with audiences.  However, if those messages aren’t firmly rooted in truth and good-faith intent, then your company’s problems are only just beginning. 

MYTH:  Control equals success.

REALITY:  It’s an intoxicating idea – the whole notion of interacting with any group of people where all the powers of persuasion and its rewards rest with you.  But come on. 

I once saw a t-shirt worn by John McVie of Fleetwood Mac, “Rock and Roll Ain’t Pretty, Baby,” and in a similar vein as someone who knows a particular line of work quite well, I can say that public relations efforts never unfold in a neat, tidy, 100-percent controlled fashion.  That’s simply not the reality of working symbiotically with other people – and often myriad groups of people who hold their own ideas, opinions, biases, experiences and desires. 

Where many companies make their mistake here is to hold their hand too close to the vest – “if I can’t completely control all the processes and all the outcomes, then I just won’t play in that sandbox at all.”  And it’s those companies sitting on the sidelines right now, saying nothing, not interacting – and of course, not getting noticed or advancing their brands in what is a very loud and competitive space.   They also have little basis upon which to understand how they can improve and stay relevant.

Absolute control is an illusion, and it dooms companies to failure in a marketplace where brands can only thrive if they’re down in the mosh pit of knowing, understanding and responding to their customers. 

Perceptual Changes in Public Relations

Thursday, October 27th, 2011

By Joe Bogardus

As a very young man, I can remember when a popular radio announcer suddenly became the public relations director for a local hospital. That’s strange, I thought. What does he know about hospital communications? I was 18 at the time.

During my early years in the business, when I encountered public relations practitioners, they were all male, and a preponderance of them were former newspapermen. Many smoked cigars and were tough-talking, glad-handing people. A planned PR program as we would know it today was largely unheard of. They were reactionaries, reacting to the news related to their companies.

I thought, even though I didn’t smoke cigars, I had a real future in public relations because I was a former journalist, plus I had a college education.

Things have changed, and along with these changes perceptions have been altered about the public relations profession.

Now, according to PRSA, 75-80 percent of all public relations practitioners are women. They populate the company and agency ranks from entry level positions to senior management. Almost everyone in the field has a college degree, and many have additional accreditation from PRSA. Major universities and smaller institutions have degree programs, both undergraduate and graduate.

In recent years, major companies and many smaller ones have recognized public relations is a critical element of communications management. Gone are the times when public relations failed to be included in the budgeting and planning process. Senior managers understand how a coordinated and comprehensive public relations program enhances the brand presentation.

Public relations is a valued profession, populated by professionals. I have not met any tough-talking, cigar-smoking, glad-handing former newspapermen in years when visiting public relations departments and agencies.

It seems not only perception but also reality has changed.

We All May Be Created Equally, But We Are Not the Same

Wednesday, October 5th, 2011

By Amy Schwinge, MAOM

From my experience, many people have preconceived notions about public relations (PR) and PR professionals; some may be correct, but some may be way off…

According to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” This definition describes PR in a nutshell, but there are many, many elements that go into supporting a true understanding of PR.

Some people base their opinion of PR and PR professionals on past encounters or relationships with other PR people. So, depending on what type of experience you had will dictate what you think about PR.

According to marketing.about.com, one PR myth states “Public Relations is Spin, Slogans and Propaganda.”

In a past life at a former employer, I actually would have employees ask me, “What propaganda are you communicating today?” While I’m sure this cynicism was driven by other factors, the idea of being a propaganda-pusher really offended me as I was communicating pertinent information about the company, which was important for employees to know. More importantly, I was communicating feedback from employees back to management, helping make two-way employee communications a crucial part of the company’s success.

Whether you are communicating with employees or the media, I think ethical behavior plays a key role in how you are viewed. Unfortunately, I know there are some “bad apples” out there practicing PR, and their behaviors tend to hurt the reputation of the larger profession to a very disproportionate degree.

Some journalists have had a bad experience with a PR person, then refuse to work with other PR people. I would venture to say that every PR person knows at least one or two members of the media like this. I really think that this is too bad since the PR and media relationship can be a win-win for all involved.

While unprofessional practices may earn some public relations practitioners their own well-deserved reputations, it’s important to remember that we are all individuals and should be judged on our own merits.

To Ryan O’Neal: Love Means Knowing How to Say You’re Sorry

Thursday, July 7th, 2011

By Mary Beth West, APR

Many people are big into today’s television talent contests and reality shows, from “American Idol” and “The Voice” (where the judges are often more entertaining than the performers) to following Snookie and The Situation on E! (may the Lord help them and the NJ Department of Tourism).

While Morgan Freeman’s “Through the Wormhole” and Carl Sagan “Cosmos” re-runs are more my family’s style, I have to admit:  the Ryan and Tatum O’Neal reality series of recent weeks on the OWN Network has gotten the better of my inner family-drama voyeur.

Hollywood has always had a corner on the market for dysfunctional families, but for decades, the O’Neals have ruled that notorious roost, with the dad at the helm of bad behavior, from alleged abandonment to drug use to gun violence – all involving his kids.

One of Ryan O’Neal’s most well-known films, 1970’s “Love Story,” delivered one of the most air-headed lines to ever hit movie-screen celluloid, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.”

Part of the O’Neal family’s problems is that the whole clan, Mr. O’Neal especially, has wallowed in too much of that self-indulgent philosophy.  Love — or at least any form of genuine caring and concern — means saying sorry when needed, and saying it well.

The public relations lesson here (and yes, there actually is one) is that there is such a thing as an effective apology, although rarely do we see it in today’s culture.

Many years ago, I read a Psychology Today article that gave some good rules for making an apology meaningful. It went something like this:

• If you’re not sorry to begin with (you don’t think you did anything wrong to be sorry for), then don’t apologize. It will only make the situation worse by making you look disingenuous to the other party or parties who think they deserve an apology. (Unfortunately, while this rule does have merit under the right circumstances, the sociopaths of the world generally embrace it and proceed no further.)

• Assuming you recognize that you did something wrong or hurtful and indeed want to apologize for it, then first acknowledge to the offended party what you did wrong . . . and in specific terms that makes a real accounting of the hurt or trouble caused. Not “sorry I deleted your document off the hard drive,” but “I made a big mistake by getting in a hurry to clear space on the computer, and I deleted a document that you needed – one that you put a lot of time into creating. I apologize that I did something so careless.”

• As appropriate, acknowledge the hurt, trouble or disruption that the action caused, such as “I realize it will take you hours to recreate the document,” and own up to it enough to try to find a solution that will help the other person, such as “Can I stay a few hours late after work this week to help you recreate it?”

Applied to the O’Neals’ situation, this sample dialogue is almost laughable in its simplicity, but here’s another apology maxim: the longer it takes you to apologize, the longer the repair work will take beyond the “sorry” part. There’s no better way to express remorse and make the recovery process effective than to put action where the words are.

From Burson to Boutique-Level, Public Relations Firms Should Set Better Ethics Examples

Monday, May 16th, 2011

By Mary Beth West, APR


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.