One of the most interesting facets of marketing and communications of late is when a weak or even a failing organization decides to hitch all of its growth potential to MarCom. This is somewhat ironic because it represents a variation on the theme I last spoke about where MarCom is seen as simply a foot soldier, expected to do nothing more than carry out orders and do as told. But let me be clear that this represents just a different variation of the same, terrible mix I spoke about last time.
In some organizations, senior managers are in love with marketing and communications. Of course, while we would love to have that happen, it is not always what it's cracked up to be. While I am a tireless and relentless advocate that marketing is the best way to build brand, it can not be the sole part of the organization out there delivering the organizations message. Also, marketing needs to be used in such a way so that the return on investment it can provide can be maximized.
One trap which needs to be avoided at all costs is the temptation to use marketing and communications as vanity tools. There is an old builder's maxim that says one should know the soil before laying the foundation. That is very true when it comes to marketing and communications. In my own experience I have told many managers that PR does not stand for press release.
So the point here in summary is that as marketing and communications professional we need to do all we can to build and protect the brand. If you look around the organization, there is very no one else who is really equipped or capable to do so. While the risk of having nothing done is both real and great, the risk of having harm come to the brand by individuals who think they know how to manage it, but really don't, is even greater. Marketing and communications people need to be that person who is there to build, render aid but also defend the brand, all depending on what the situation calls for.
Showing posts with label communications. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communications. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
It's time for marketing and communications to take a stand!
One area where marketing and communications has always lagged is that it allows itself to be seen as a strictly tactical tool by the C-level executives. The past recession has made this even worse. The corporate communications function has struck a new low by becoming simply a reactionary tool which has offered hardly any strategic contribution to the organization's success.
2011 should be the year in which we take back our profession and reassert it as the strategic tool that it is. Speaking as someone who works as a free-lance consultant, I have the advantage of offering strategic advice to senior level executives on what to do, and then to go and execute it on a tactical level. My experience with this is that even when speaking strategy, and trying to draw marketing and communications into a larger corporate theme, it is virtually impossible to have the senior level executives see MarCom as anything other than a tactical tool. When it comes to communications all we hear is that the C-level wants more press releases, a new web site, more literature and so on. We rarely hear about using it as a strategic tool to drive sales.
This is really the fault of the marketing managers out there who are more than happy to coast along doing as little as possible and figure that if they go along and get along they will survive. Sadly, this has left our field scattered with a bunch of mediocre managers who lack the courage and drive to challenge management and encourage it to see marketing and communications as a long term tool which, when executed properly, can drive the entire branding and sales function.
One thing we can do as a profession is to drive our field and commit to standards of excellence. How many other fields would sit by and allow anything other than excellence be their guides. Such fields and medicine and law have high barriers of entry and require educated people to make informed decisions. Also, a certain specialty is not only expected but in many cases it's required.
Marketing and communications could benefit greatly by taking on more of trappings of an elite profession in 2011. By doing this, we can establish ourselves as legitimate stakeholders and contributors to the organization's success. By standing up and wanting to be counted as a profession and not just a job, we can have a stronger impact on the entire business community!
2011 should be the year in which we take back our profession and reassert it as the strategic tool that it is. Speaking as someone who works as a free-lance consultant, I have the advantage of offering strategic advice to senior level executives on what to do, and then to go and execute it on a tactical level. My experience with this is that even when speaking strategy, and trying to draw marketing and communications into a larger corporate theme, it is virtually impossible to have the senior level executives see MarCom as anything other than a tactical tool. When it comes to communications all we hear is that the C-level wants more press releases, a new web site, more literature and so on. We rarely hear about using it as a strategic tool to drive sales.
This is really the fault of the marketing managers out there who are more than happy to coast along doing as little as possible and figure that if they go along and get along they will survive. Sadly, this has left our field scattered with a bunch of mediocre managers who lack the courage and drive to challenge management and encourage it to see marketing and communications as a long term tool which, when executed properly, can drive the entire branding and sales function.
One thing we can do as a profession is to drive our field and commit to standards of excellence. How many other fields would sit by and allow anything other than excellence be their guides. Such fields and medicine and law have high barriers of entry and require educated people to make informed decisions. Also, a certain specialty is not only expected but in many cases it's required.
Marketing and communications could benefit greatly by taking on more of trappings of an elite profession in 2011. By doing this, we can establish ourselves as legitimate stakeholders and contributors to the organization's success. By standing up and wanting to be counted as a profession and not just a job, we can have a stronger impact on the entire business community!
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Driving social media in 2011
Ah yes, my first post of the new year. When thinking about what to write about I only had to go back into the waning days of 2010 to find some good material. One of my personal favorite topics is social media. Besides being personally fascinated by it, I find it very interesting to see how organizations are allocating resources to develop their social media platforms. Some, are following the failed model of the late 1990's and are walling up their social media programs as far away from marketing and communications as possible. Others look to outside people to tell them what to do but at the same time use the masquerade that they know exactly what you are talking about and that you are not telling them anything they have not all ready thought of.
The key for a successful social media program is that it absolutely must be run hand in hand with public relations. Furthermore, PR and marketing must be the parts of the organization which make the calls and guide the development of the program. This was not done with the development of the web site in most cases and as a result, we see that the Internet has never lived up to its full potential as a marketing or communications tool.
Also, only PR and marketing people can see that when it comes to social media, one size does not fit all. We need to find the best fit for the organization. Not every social media site is ideally suited for the needs of the organization. The goal is to find the site which fits the organizations needs and not the other way around! Social media is a tool to be used for the betterment of the organization and not a cool gadget we need to find a way to use.
I believe that's the key for social media in 2011 and why it has been a bust for most companies up to now. Find the right social medium for your company and work with an organization or individual who truly understands not just social media, but also has a firm understanding of organizational needs and can find a program which will dovetail perfectly with organizational goals. Marketing and specifically PR are ideally suited to make social media work for companies large and small in 2011.
The key for a successful social media program is that it absolutely must be run hand in hand with public relations. Furthermore, PR and marketing must be the parts of the organization which make the calls and guide the development of the program. This was not done with the development of the web site in most cases and as a result, we see that the Internet has never lived up to its full potential as a marketing or communications tool.
Also, only PR and marketing people can see that when it comes to social media, one size does not fit all. We need to find the best fit for the organization. Not every social media site is ideally suited for the needs of the organization. The goal is to find the site which fits the organizations needs and not the other way around! Social media is a tool to be used for the betterment of the organization and not a cool gadget we need to find a way to use.
I believe that's the key for social media in 2011 and why it has been a bust for most companies up to now. Find the right social medium for your company and work with an organization or individual who truly understands not just social media, but also has a firm understanding of organizational needs and can find a program which will dovetail perfectly with organizational goals. Marketing and specifically PR are ideally suited to make social media work for companies large and small in 2011.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
How best to integrate social media into organization marketing
I have been fascinated by the number of organizations who are hiring for social media managers. I have spoken to a few of these people and I have seen some very interesting things. By and large the one finding I have noticed is that they see social media as a bomb to be defused. They approach it in the way the technicians in the "Hurt Locker" approached their jobs.
It has become apparent to me that the concept of social media in the marketing and communications field has yet to be fully defined. For one thing there is a tendency when defining the role responsible for social media to look out and see what's popular in social media and try to find a way to fit into all outlets. Very little forethought is given into what may be the best social media outlets. This is very similar to bringing the furniture into a house before the windows have been installed.
Fortunately, one trend that does seem to be emerging is the desire for marketing and communications to handle the social media platform for the company. Given that on a professional level this didn't really exist 2 to 3 years ago, this bodes very well. Those of us who were around remember how when the internet took off, web design and structure was set off very distinctly from marketing to mostly disastrous results.
Still there runs a grave risk of placing some type of mystique into social media that doesn't belong. I had one person tell me that they wanted someone who had a "feel" for social media meaning someone who was younger. My main concern here is that if someone doesn't understand marketing, how can they develop an integrated strategy? Physicians do this all the time, they go off and learn about new procedures and new tools. They don't just bring in doctors just out of med-school with the idea they know more, it is expected that physicians keep up to date on the latest technology and integrate it into their years of experience. This is something which marketing and communications people can adapt to social media.
So what do marketing people do when it comes to social media and how do we fit social media into our current marketing platform. One of the best methods to follow may be that of our friends in the medical field. We need to keep up to date and most importantly find a way to integrate new and emerging trends such as social media into our own field of expertise. By assuming ownership of what is new in the world, we can fully contribute into the organization's climate. We also need to make sure we don't shut out the lessons we can learn from those who may have less mileage overall, but may have a special expertise we lack. Remember professional learning never stops!
It has become apparent to me that the concept of social media in the marketing and communications field has yet to be fully defined. For one thing there is a tendency when defining the role responsible for social media to look out and see what's popular in social media and try to find a way to fit into all outlets. Very little forethought is given into what may be the best social media outlets. This is very similar to bringing the furniture into a house before the windows have been installed.
Fortunately, one trend that does seem to be emerging is the desire for marketing and communications to handle the social media platform for the company. Given that on a professional level this didn't really exist 2 to 3 years ago, this bodes very well. Those of us who were around remember how when the internet took off, web design and structure was set off very distinctly from marketing to mostly disastrous results.
Still there runs a grave risk of placing some type of mystique into social media that doesn't belong. I had one person tell me that they wanted someone who had a "feel" for social media meaning someone who was younger. My main concern here is that if someone doesn't understand marketing, how can they develop an integrated strategy? Physicians do this all the time, they go off and learn about new procedures and new tools. They don't just bring in doctors just out of med-school with the idea they know more, it is expected that physicians keep up to date on the latest technology and integrate it into their years of experience. This is something which marketing and communications people can adapt to social media.
So what do marketing people do when it comes to social media and how do we fit social media into our current marketing platform. One of the best methods to follow may be that of our friends in the medical field. We need to keep up to date and most importantly find a way to integrate new and emerging trends such as social media into our own field of expertise. By assuming ownership of what is new in the world, we can fully contribute into the organization's climate. We also need to make sure we don't shut out the lessons we can learn from those who may have less mileage overall, but may have a special expertise we lack. Remember professional learning never stops!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Time to stop falling for the latest fad
One of the great weaknesses in marketing, or any aspect of business for that matter, is when a certain technology or skill is seen as unassailable and/or beyond criticism. A very worrisome trend is that social media is beginning to approach those standards in some respects. When any media vehicle is seen as a cure all that every one is in love with then it is time to take a step back and wonder if we're really doing something intelligent, or if we are like a herd of lemmings about to plunge over the cliff.
Now to be absolutely clear this is not by any means an assault on the viability of social media. Quite the opposite it is in my opinion a rare attempt to assess it based solely on its merits and avoid repeating the errors made when the web first came on the scene. For those not around or of short memory the Internet was seen as a magic cure for all that ailed the organization. Of course when this proved false organizations were forced to scramble because now they had to rely on more traditional marketing methods which had been largely shelved if not forgotten.
There was an insane posting I saw lately that I think demonstrated just how much the disease which is the passion for social media has infected marketing. One blogger actually referred to social media as marketing on steroids. So if I understand it clearly, and I think I do, social media is being compared too a drug which provides very little short term benefit, no long term benefit and ultimately kills its user? This is yet another brick in that wall of why PR, communications and basically marketing are not taken seriously as disciplines. We fall in love far too quickly and seem to completely lack any sound judgment or discipline.
Marketing people need to learn the art and science of self-discipline. We need to remember that gorging on appetizers will not allow us to properly enjoy the main course. Instead we need to focus on building a well balanced, well formed plan which combines the best of the old and the best of the new. That means that we will use some elements of both and that we will not use some. To act as if one program is completely without fault because it is new is as foolish as disregarding it for the same reason. It is up to marketing people to get their heads on straight and to think long term and constructively and deliver results which will build a brand!
Now to be absolutely clear this is not by any means an assault on the viability of social media. Quite the opposite it is in my opinion a rare attempt to assess it based solely on its merits and avoid repeating the errors made when the web first came on the scene. For those not around or of short memory the Internet was seen as a magic cure for all that ailed the organization. Of course when this proved false organizations were forced to scramble because now they had to rely on more traditional marketing methods which had been largely shelved if not forgotten.
There was an insane posting I saw lately that I think demonstrated just how much the disease which is the passion for social media has infected marketing. One blogger actually referred to social media as marketing on steroids. So if I understand it clearly, and I think I do, social media is being compared too a drug which provides very little short term benefit, no long term benefit and ultimately kills its user? This is yet another brick in that wall of why PR, communications and basically marketing are not taken seriously as disciplines. We fall in love far too quickly and seem to completely lack any sound judgment or discipline.
Marketing people need to learn the art and science of self-discipline. We need to remember that gorging on appetizers will not allow us to properly enjoy the main course. Instead we need to focus on building a well balanced, well formed plan which combines the best of the old and the best of the new. That means that we will use some elements of both and that we will not use some. To act as if one program is completely without fault because it is new is as foolish as disregarding it for the same reason. It is up to marketing people to get their heads on straight and to think long term and constructively and deliver results which will build a brand!
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Why are we so afraid of failure?
I had the chance to speak to an agency big wig at a recent networking event and shocked her when I told her about the question I love to ask agencies during the screening process. It doesn't matter because her agency is not in a field that I would hire but she proved the point I was trying to make. People have an irrational and complete fear of failure and it drives them to distraction.
We are set up to believe that there is success, from which all good and bounty flows, and there is failure which is where all failure goes too die! Sadly this is not the case. To get back to my original question, I had asked this woman how her agency deals with failures when they are the ones responsible. Sadly the response I saw was all too typical. Fear of showing weakness seemed to trump any desire to be an open and honest vendor rather than putting on the typical facade that in the end makes them look silly as if they have never made a mistake.
Failure is one of those things that happens in the client relationship. It is not desirable but it does happen. Mature people and agencies make mistakes, deal with it and move on. Immature people and agencies act like it never happens and when it does seek to find people to blame. They never learn from their mistakes because they are too busy ducking blame and aren't interested in assuming responsibility.
I have found that by asking people to tell me about a time they have failed I get a really interesting response. First of all, most people are floored by it. The truth is that there is no right answer. Some will give a specific example, some will will try and turn it into a learning experience. Either way both are right, and both are wrong, but the question really turns on how someone tries to answer the question. Do they try try to evade it or do they stand up and admit to having failed in the past and having learned from it and moved on.
The simple fact is that failure is a part of our lives as professionals and while no one strives for failure nor should it be a goal it is something to be managed and controlled. It becomes a big issue when we dodge the issue and try to convince the world that we have not failed. Failure is a learning tool when it occurs. It is fuel to the fire of ignorance when it is ignored.
We are set up to believe that there is success, from which all good and bounty flows, and there is failure which is where all failure goes too die! Sadly this is not the case. To get back to my original question, I had asked this woman how her agency deals with failures when they are the ones responsible. Sadly the response I saw was all too typical. Fear of showing weakness seemed to trump any desire to be an open and honest vendor rather than putting on the typical facade that in the end makes them look silly as if they have never made a mistake.
Failure is one of those things that happens in the client relationship. It is not desirable but it does happen. Mature people and agencies make mistakes, deal with it and move on. Immature people and agencies act like it never happens and when it does seek to find people to blame. They never learn from their mistakes because they are too busy ducking blame and aren't interested in assuming responsibility.
I have found that by asking people to tell me about a time they have failed I get a really interesting response. First of all, most people are floored by it. The truth is that there is no right answer. Some will give a specific example, some will will try and turn it into a learning experience. Either way both are right, and both are wrong, but the question really turns on how someone tries to answer the question. Do they try try to evade it or do they stand up and admit to having failed in the past and having learned from it and moved on.
The simple fact is that failure is a part of our lives as professionals and while no one strives for failure nor should it be a goal it is something to be managed and controlled. It becomes a big issue when we dodge the issue and try to convince the world that we have not failed. Failure is a learning tool when it occurs. It is fuel to the fire of ignorance when it is ignored.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Is PR Dead?
A good friend of mine, and a journalist no less, asked on his blog if PR was dead and, or dying. This wasn't a shot at PR in so much as he was questioning why companies spend a great deal of money on something which, in his opinion, is of very little value and which the news media pays no attention too. I corrected him on the two errors I see in the story, the first being that PR offers no value and the second being that we offer members of the media no value.
Now the easy thing to do here is to fly off the handle and say that this person has no idea of what we do and how important we are. But that would be only petulant and self-serving. I think we are better served if we use this as a means of examining the value we do bring and if we are offering true value to the organization or if we are muddying the waters and are a professional in search of a role?
I will say that I believe that a number of PR organizations, specifically some agencies, do a great disservice to the organization by being petulant and immature in their dealings with the media but also being petulant and immature in how they deal with the concept of public relations. Having worked with a great number of agency people I have seen no shortage of immaturity and almost infantile behavior. Now before I am strung up by my colleagues in the field I will freely admit I don't believe they are the majority but that they are a large enough minority to give those who do their job's right a black eye.
I also disagree, in the strongest terms possible the stereotype that all PR people are spin doctors or that we all bend the truth. First, I believe strongly that there are two sides to every argument and they deserve to be heard. Granted it can be an argument between right and wrong but that still is an airing of opinion which in an open society is a very good thing. Secondly, certain professions tend to get smeared by the acts of a few. Lawyers can certainly attest to this. But let's not forget the positives that have come out of these fields.
If not for public relations, we would have never heard of the ills of smoking, the need for seat belts or advocates for people with disabilities. All of these great causes were advocated by pressure groups which all use PR to advance their messages. Are there excesses in PR, of course, but there are in education, finance and even in media.
There is one thing PR can do a much better job at and that is letting the world know about how it helps make us healthier, happier and safer thanks to PR. Is PR necessary, absolutely because every legal organization, now matter what we think of it has a right to have its voice heard. Also, despite crying how much they hate it, the news media would be lost without a public relations person to help them meet the right people. Good journalism owes its life to good PR. So PR does contribute to the success of so many organizations. We are not just a cog in a machine, we are a strong driver or a full gear and when used properly we help the entire engine run much smoother.
Sorry but the rumors of the death of PR are greatly exaggerated!
Now the easy thing to do here is to fly off the handle and say that this person has no idea of what we do and how important we are. But that would be only petulant and self-serving. I think we are better served if we use this as a means of examining the value we do bring and if we are offering true value to the organization or if we are muddying the waters and are a professional in search of a role?
I will say that I believe that a number of PR organizations, specifically some agencies, do a great disservice to the organization by being petulant and immature in their dealings with the media but also being petulant and immature in how they deal with the concept of public relations. Having worked with a great number of agency people I have seen no shortage of immaturity and almost infantile behavior. Now before I am strung up by my colleagues in the field I will freely admit I don't believe they are the majority but that they are a large enough minority to give those who do their job's right a black eye.
I also disagree, in the strongest terms possible the stereotype that all PR people are spin doctors or that we all bend the truth. First, I believe strongly that there are two sides to every argument and they deserve to be heard. Granted it can be an argument between right and wrong but that still is an airing of opinion which in an open society is a very good thing. Secondly, certain professions tend to get smeared by the acts of a few. Lawyers can certainly attest to this. But let's not forget the positives that have come out of these fields.
If not for public relations, we would have never heard of the ills of smoking, the need for seat belts or advocates for people with disabilities. All of these great causes were advocated by pressure groups which all use PR to advance their messages. Are there excesses in PR, of course, but there are in education, finance and even in media.
There is one thing PR can do a much better job at and that is letting the world know about how it helps make us healthier, happier and safer thanks to PR. Is PR necessary, absolutely because every legal organization, now matter what we think of it has a right to have its voice heard. Also, despite crying how much they hate it, the news media would be lost without a public relations person to help them meet the right people. Good journalism owes its life to good PR. So PR does contribute to the success of so many organizations. We are not just a cog in a machine, we are a strong driver or a full gear and when used properly we help the entire engine run much smoother.
Sorry but the rumors of the death of PR are greatly exaggerated!
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Why marketing may need to fight the C-level for control of the brand!
Communications and marketing people have a tough job that much is sure. No department in the organization is faced with such a rapidly changing means of reaching out to their target audiences, thus doing their jobs, as the Marketing and communications teams. Still there is one group that makes our job extremely difficult. It is the C-suite's slavish devotion to short term gains with a full knowledge of how the long term results will produce nothing but harm for the organization.
One key example of this is that the C-suite often expects marketing and communications to produce immediate results, while all the time reducing the budget we have to work with and shortening the amount of time to allow a campaign to work. Imagine if we told a doctor that a certain surgical procedure needs to take only 4 hours instead of 6, they can only use 75% of their tools and we expect the patient to be functioning at 120% inside of a week. People would laugh because these conditions are the height of irrationality, yet we think nothing of expecting marketing and communications to work under these conditions.
The most egregious weakness in this scenario is usually found in public companies. It is almost laughable how in many public companies the sole audience the C-level is interested in is the investment community and in keeping them happy. I have seen C-level executives prance around like they are in a dog and pony show and do self destructive things all for some short term benefit which, like a sugar rush, is often gone before it's enjoyed. Hardly any degree of attention is shown to the customer or retaining the customer. I have found it mystifying that a C-level executive will often dodge a customer call, yet will happily speak to some freshly minted MBA from Harvard or Princeton to keep the stock rating positive and thus up a penny or two.
An intelligent C-level executive sees the brand as the key to organization survival and thinks in the long term. The best analogy I have ever heard is that running a company is like climbing a mountain. You keep your eyes on the peak but also focus on the next ledge. That's a great analogy for what marketing can do to help a C-level executive succeed. Rather than being a cost center or a prop shop, marketing and communications can help the C-level executives reach the next level of success as well as that eventual peak. In fact, we're the only group who can get the program off the ground.
Marketing and communications can only succeed if they are viewed as a long term, strategic tool. Seeing them as a temporary, tactical tool to be cut and expanded on a willy, nilly basis is not only short-sighted but it is self-destructive. Visionary leaders in marketing and communications need to take the lead and need to confront the C-level on the responsibility to defend the brand and ensure its long-term success.
One key example of this is that the C-suite often expects marketing and communications to produce immediate results, while all the time reducing the budget we have to work with and shortening the amount of time to allow a campaign to work. Imagine if we told a doctor that a certain surgical procedure needs to take only 4 hours instead of 6, they can only use 75% of their tools and we expect the patient to be functioning at 120% inside of a week. People would laugh because these conditions are the height of irrationality, yet we think nothing of expecting marketing and communications to work under these conditions.
The most egregious weakness in this scenario is usually found in public companies. It is almost laughable how in many public companies the sole audience the C-level is interested in is the investment community and in keeping them happy. I have seen C-level executives prance around like they are in a dog and pony show and do self destructive things all for some short term benefit which, like a sugar rush, is often gone before it's enjoyed. Hardly any degree of attention is shown to the customer or retaining the customer. I have found it mystifying that a C-level executive will often dodge a customer call, yet will happily speak to some freshly minted MBA from Harvard or Princeton to keep the stock rating positive and thus up a penny or two.
An intelligent C-level executive sees the brand as the key to organization survival and thinks in the long term. The best analogy I have ever heard is that running a company is like climbing a mountain. You keep your eyes on the peak but also focus on the next ledge. That's a great analogy for what marketing can do to help a C-level executive succeed. Rather than being a cost center or a prop shop, marketing and communications can help the C-level executives reach the next level of success as well as that eventual peak. In fact, we're the only group who can get the program off the ground.
Marketing and communications can only succeed if they are viewed as a long term, strategic tool. Seeing them as a temporary, tactical tool to be cut and expanded on a willy, nilly basis is not only short-sighted but it is self-destructive. Visionary leaders in marketing and communications need to take the lead and need to confront the C-level on the responsibility to defend the brand and ensure its long-term success.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Let marketing drive the company
This is a very obvious statement so please forgive me if I insult your intelligence. An automobile needs a steering wheel, accelerator, gear shift as well as brakes to operate properly. A bike, needs much the same things with the big change obviously being that it doesn't need the accelerator as that is the person riding. In the world of business, communications is what provides the acceleration and to some degree provides warnings of the course corrections and changes required as well as providing warnings about the crazy drivers in the other lanes and even the speed limits.
What's the reason for this automobile analogy? Well marketing and communications are far too often seen as entirely functional or tactical tools and far too few organizations see the value they bring as strategic assets to the organization. Can you imagine for a minute if you reacted when the person in front of you slams on the brakes or when the other driver runs the red light? Just like in marketing, a great driver needs to be in command of the situations, needs to know the course and needs to be able to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, what is likely to happen soon.
Now the key thing to see here is that accidents will happen and perfection is impossible. Sorry, C-Level executives seem to think we are perfect when in fact we are not, and that is nothing to be ashamed of. The fact remains however that the true guidance of the organization should be the domain of the marketing and communications department because we are the ones who understand how to chart an organizations long term voyage through the various ups and downs the organization will face. In addition, the marketing and communication team will be one of the few groups who do not live from quarter to quarter and have a more long term, strategic outlook.
So the long story short is that the guidance and acceleration of an organization who sees itself as a leader should be run through the marketing and communications group. Unlike most of the business world marketing and communications, when done properly, are long term strategic departments. That is necessary in order to help an organization survive the temporary hurdles which will come across its path from time to time. The organizations' who pursue other courses may succeed but it's like driving with a blindfold on. As long as there aren't any disruptions in the road, you will do fine. If you focus on marketing and communications as the leads for the organization, you should be able to avoid a number of pitfalls and in doing so, leave those organizations who choose another method of guidance well behind you.
What's the reason for this automobile analogy? Well marketing and communications are far too often seen as entirely functional or tactical tools and far too few organizations see the value they bring as strategic assets to the organization. Can you imagine for a minute if you reacted when the person in front of you slams on the brakes or when the other driver runs the red light? Just like in marketing, a great driver needs to be in command of the situations, needs to know the course and needs to be able to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, what is likely to happen soon.
Now the key thing to see here is that accidents will happen and perfection is impossible. Sorry, C-Level executives seem to think we are perfect when in fact we are not, and that is nothing to be ashamed of. The fact remains however that the true guidance of the organization should be the domain of the marketing and communications department because we are the ones who understand how to chart an organizations long term voyage through the various ups and downs the organization will face. In addition, the marketing and communication team will be one of the few groups who do not live from quarter to quarter and have a more long term, strategic outlook.
So the long story short is that the guidance and acceleration of an organization who sees itself as a leader should be run through the marketing and communications group. Unlike most of the business world marketing and communications, when done properly, are long term strategic departments. That is necessary in order to help an organization survive the temporary hurdles which will come across its path from time to time. The organizations' who pursue other courses may succeed but it's like driving with a blindfold on. As long as there aren't any disruptions in the road, you will do fine. If you focus on marketing and communications as the leads for the organization, you should be able to avoid a number of pitfalls and in doing so, leave those organizations who choose another method of guidance well behind you.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Where do we set the bar on ethics?
One of my favorite shows is Mad Men. It has won the Emmy for best drama three years straight. Besides presenting an engaging and enlightening view into the early 1960's. It combines strong characters with intelligent dialogue and just a dash of dark humor. I particularly liked the most recent episode broadcast on Sunday night here. For those who don't wish to know the plot skip the next few lines. As we know, Don Draper, the head of creative for Sterling, Cooper, Draper and Pryce paid to have an open letter in the New York Times where he renounced any future intent to do advertising for cigarettes.
I find this interesting because it raises a rarely discussed part of marketing and communications and that is the aspect of where do we draw the line when it comes to marketing and communicating in an ethical setting. Now I will assume that no one believes that it is in anyway ethical to market a product which is illegal. The big gray area becomes whether or not it is unethical to design a marketing campaign for a product which is perfectly legal, but is certainly unhealthy.
Obviously the biggest market to consider is what Don Draper was considering and that was cigarettes. While they remain perfectly legal products, one has to consider if doing marketing for these products is unto itself unethical. While I do not smoke, and I am a huge proponent of preventing smoking, and it will kill you, the fact remains that it is a legal and highly regulated product.
Another industry to keep in mind is the fast food industry which sells meals which are extremely unhealthy and a leading cause of obesity today. But once again the fact remains it is a legal product and one whose risks, while not as sharply defined as cigarettes, are clear and distinct.
The final industry to consider is defense related industries. These people make weapons and let's be honest, weapons kill people. That is their purpose. If they fail to do this then they have failed! But having worked with that field the logic is that their products, if well designed, will save lives by making the other fellow less likely to start anything!
So now we're at the crux of the argument. Is is necessarily unethical for a marketing person to do their job in a field where the product is unhealthy. While some people may not like my answer, I believe there is nothing wrong with working for a company who is selling a legal product. Granted, there perfectly acceptable reasons to be upset with the products themselves but that does not render the product themselves unacceptable provided they meet the appropriate regulatory requirements.
Kudos to Don Draper for making a stand and deciding that his company will draw the line at cigarettes. Notice that the writers did not put McDonald's in the script. If someone wants to take a stand and would not wish to work for a company which makes a product or promotes a lifestyle they object to, that is their right to refuse. Just remember, as Don Draper learned, nothing happens in a vacuum and there will be ramifications. Stands are very brave and should be respected, let's remember the old quip that in physics, every action has an opposite and equal reaction while in business that reaction is 20 fold!
I find this interesting because it raises a rarely discussed part of marketing and communications and that is the aspect of where do we draw the line when it comes to marketing and communicating in an ethical setting. Now I will assume that no one believes that it is in anyway ethical to market a product which is illegal. The big gray area becomes whether or not it is unethical to design a marketing campaign for a product which is perfectly legal, but is certainly unhealthy.
Obviously the biggest market to consider is what Don Draper was considering and that was cigarettes. While they remain perfectly legal products, one has to consider if doing marketing for these products is unto itself unethical. While I do not smoke, and I am a huge proponent of preventing smoking, and it will kill you, the fact remains that it is a legal and highly regulated product.
Another industry to keep in mind is the fast food industry which sells meals which are extremely unhealthy and a leading cause of obesity today. But once again the fact remains it is a legal product and one whose risks, while not as sharply defined as cigarettes, are clear and distinct.
The final industry to consider is defense related industries. These people make weapons and let's be honest, weapons kill people. That is their purpose. If they fail to do this then they have failed! But having worked with that field the logic is that their products, if well designed, will save lives by making the other fellow less likely to start anything!
So now we're at the crux of the argument. Is is necessarily unethical for a marketing person to do their job in a field where the product is unhealthy. While some people may not like my answer, I believe there is nothing wrong with working for a company who is selling a legal product. Granted, there perfectly acceptable reasons to be upset with the products themselves but that does not render the product themselves unacceptable provided they meet the appropriate regulatory requirements.
Kudos to Don Draper for making a stand and deciding that his company will draw the line at cigarettes. Notice that the writers did not put McDonald's in the script. If someone wants to take a stand and would not wish to work for a company which makes a product or promotes a lifestyle they object to, that is their right to refuse. Just remember, as Don Draper learned, nothing happens in a vacuum and there will be ramifications. Stands are very brave and should be respected, let's remember the old quip that in physics, every action has an opposite and equal reaction while in business that reaction is 20 fold!
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Driving down the highway that is marketing and branding
I am sure we all have stories about seeing crazy things on the highway. Be it people talking on their cell phones, shaving or even reading while driving at break neck speeds. This past weekend, while driving to a cook out, I was forced to pass a woman who was driving 45mph in the left lane because she was busy texting and apparently fixing her hair. Of course I thought two things. First, this woman is an accident waiting to happen but secondly and more importantly it represents a good analogy of what is going on in marketing, communications and branding today.
For one thing marketing is be driven at breakneck speed and is often to expected to arrive at locations in an unreasonable amount of time while not getting a speeding ticket. In words that will ring true to all marketing people, do it fast, do it right, do it under budget and make no mistakes. What is also true for all marketing people is that, much like cars, the universe they operated in is changing. For a long time the automobile was a sanctuary. For better or for worse it was an area where a person could not be reached.
Marketing used to be a relatively easy to understand format. It used to be archaic and very traditional, with a long established means of doing things. It's scope was very limited and it was seen as highly tactical. There was very little change in its scope for a great many years.
Both areas have seen tremendous changes during the pasts several years. For cars there is now cell phones, GPS, satellite radio and so much more which change how we operate in the car. For marketing, the changes are even greater. Marketing people have evolved from being the helmsman who steers the large slow moving vessels to the captain of the craft running viscous white water.
As for the highway itself, we see that some people take to driving it different ways just like a true highway. For example, some people take to the driveway and drive really slow, others drive like lunatics. Others take it slow and steady. This is to be expected because just as drivers are unique and approach the highways different organizations approach marketing different.
What's ironic is that many organizations are like a lot of drivers in the good old days and approach marketing the way they approached driving. That is to say they don't plan and often get lost along the way. In these pre Garmin or Tom Tom days people had to look for gas stations or other locations to find their way. A great deal of organizations drive down that highway with no idea where they are going or how they are going to get there. Sometimes they drive down the highway very fast assuming speed is progress or sometimes they stay in the right lane assuming that slow and steady will win the race, yet fail to notice all the competitors blowing by them.
The moral to the story is that driving on the modern highway is a great analogy for doing marketing, communications and branding in the modern age. You need to have the right tools to get the job done (a well maintained car,good radio, etc.) you need to know where you want to go and how to get there. You need to stay focused on the road and not get distracted by small and inconsequential items. Lastly, you need to be aware of your surroundings and judge your progress by your own goals, not by what is going on around you.
For one thing marketing is be driven at breakneck speed and is often to expected to arrive at locations in an unreasonable amount of time while not getting a speeding ticket. In words that will ring true to all marketing people, do it fast, do it right, do it under budget and make no mistakes. What is also true for all marketing people is that, much like cars, the universe they operated in is changing. For a long time the automobile was a sanctuary. For better or for worse it was an area where a person could not be reached.
Marketing used to be a relatively easy to understand format. It used to be archaic and very traditional, with a long established means of doing things. It's scope was very limited and it was seen as highly tactical. There was very little change in its scope for a great many years.
Both areas have seen tremendous changes during the pasts several years. For cars there is now cell phones, GPS, satellite radio and so much more which change how we operate in the car. For marketing, the changes are even greater. Marketing people have evolved from being the helmsman who steers the large slow moving vessels to the captain of the craft running viscous white water.
As for the highway itself, we see that some people take to driving it different ways just like a true highway. For example, some people take to the driveway and drive really slow, others drive like lunatics. Others take it slow and steady. This is to be expected because just as drivers are unique and approach the highways different organizations approach marketing different.
What's ironic is that many organizations are like a lot of drivers in the good old days and approach marketing the way they approached driving. That is to say they don't plan and often get lost along the way. In these pre Garmin or Tom Tom days people had to look for gas stations or other locations to find their way. A great deal of organizations drive down that highway with no idea where they are going or how they are going to get there. Sometimes they drive down the highway very fast assuming speed is progress or sometimes they stay in the right lane assuming that slow and steady will win the race, yet fail to notice all the competitors blowing by them.
The moral to the story is that driving on the modern highway is a great analogy for doing marketing, communications and branding in the modern age. You need to have the right tools to get the job done (a well maintained car,good radio, etc.) you need to know where you want to go and how to get there. You need to stay focused on the road and not get distracted by small and inconsequential items. Lastly, you need to be aware of your surroundings and judge your progress by your own goals, not by what is going on around you.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The deadliest communications four letter word :PLAN
Last time I was talking about the need to speed things up and kick into high gear. Now is the time when I say, well we also need to slow down a bit. Are these contradictory? Now absolutely not and let me explain.
Execution is unquestionably essential to the development of a proper brand. It is often where the wheels come off the wagon and many well designed plans fall down, never to be heard from again. Execution is the time when we have to deliver. But let's step back a minute and look at what needs to be done before execution. By that, I am referring to that terrible word and something a lot of C-level's don't like to see and that is plan.
Especially in the area of communications senior executives seem to have the notion that it is simply a matter of throwing a switch and all will start running like clock work and that is all there is too it. As one CEO said to me once, "Communications should be as easy as order from a drive through." Needless to say he h ad no idea of how powerful communications was as a tool and how it could benefit his organization.
Now there is one big, enormous down side to planning and that is that it requires organizations to look three to six months out. It requires vision and it requires waiting. For a world class communications plan to work there is a need to plan out several months in advance just as there is in every category.
I laugh sometimes because my account and finance friends spend a long time working on various financial models and try to determine different scenarios which will show what cash flow will be in 3 months or 6 months or what ever time period. The same holds true for IT managers who have to plan several months in advance for upgrades and patches and security tests. As we can see planning is an essential and intelligent aspect of the organizational growth process.
Yet the communications department is expected to produce stuff on rapid turn around, more often than not to suit the temporary needs of senior management. Ironically, this is the most visible forum for the organization and unlike IT or, to a lesser degree finance, this will be seen by external audiences who will be making decisions based on what they see.
One thing we need to do as communications professionals in order to strengthen our position within the organization is to develop strong planning methods and then to stick with them. We need to do this so that we can develop a cohesive and far-reaching planning strategy but most importantly we need to do this so we can develop a system to measure and evaluate our progress. The use of planning and strategy and more importantly our resolute defense of the need to do this will ultimately benefit the organization and its brand and ultimately refocus senior leadership on the role of communications as a strategic tool and asset and one that needs to be nurtured and grown.
Execution is unquestionably essential to the development of a proper brand. It is often where the wheels come off the wagon and many well designed plans fall down, never to be heard from again. Execution is the time when we have to deliver. But let's step back a minute and look at what needs to be done before execution. By that, I am referring to that terrible word and something a lot of C-level's don't like to see and that is plan.
Especially in the area of communications senior executives seem to have the notion that it is simply a matter of throwing a switch and all will start running like clock work and that is all there is too it. As one CEO said to me once, "Communications should be as easy as order from a drive through." Needless to say he h ad no idea of how powerful communications was as a tool and how it could benefit his organization.
Now there is one big, enormous down side to planning and that is that it requires organizations to look three to six months out. It requires vision and it requires waiting. For a world class communications plan to work there is a need to plan out several months in advance just as there is in every category.
I laugh sometimes because my account and finance friends spend a long time working on various financial models and try to determine different scenarios which will show what cash flow will be in 3 months or 6 months or what ever time period. The same holds true for IT managers who have to plan several months in advance for upgrades and patches and security tests. As we can see planning is an essential and intelligent aspect of the organizational growth process.
Yet the communications department is expected to produce stuff on rapid turn around, more often than not to suit the temporary needs of senior management. Ironically, this is the most visible forum for the organization and unlike IT or, to a lesser degree finance, this will be seen by external audiences who will be making decisions based on what they see.
One thing we need to do as communications professionals in order to strengthen our position within the organization is to develop strong planning methods and then to stick with them. We need to do this so that we can develop a cohesive and far-reaching planning strategy but most importantly we need to do this so we can develop a system to measure and evaluate our progress. The use of planning and strategy and more importantly our resolute defense of the need to do this will ultimately benefit the organization and its brand and ultimately refocus senior leadership on the role of communications as a strategic tool and asset and one that needs to be nurtured and grown.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Sprinting to the finish line.
Now that Labor Day is behind us we start heading into the time of year when the days grow shorter and the leaves change color and the thermometer drops. In many respects this is my favorite time of year because the air is so fresh and refined that it makes the work process so much more enjoyable. It also is the time of year when we can focus on what is coming up and begin our sprint to the finish line.
Ideally, the summer was spent planning for this sprint. That was of course, in between fantasies of vacations. The fall sprint should be focused on bringing target audiences back into focus and get yourself onto the radar of major stakeholders. This is really the time of year when marketing budgets are being established and major purchasing decisions are generally being reached. This is the time of year when planning turns into execution.
Given that a lot of plans are being made for 2011 we need to make the most of this time of year. This is a great time of year to engage social media and bring your customers and potential customers in at a new level so they can see you as a more concrete partner in their business. It is also a time to use the more traditional methods and try to engage media partners in a business relationship that will result in the previously mentioned complete market penetration. Lastly, it is the time to stop being the wallflower and become the player in the industry you thought you should be all along.
The final third of the year is when you should really shift into high gear. It is the time of year when marketing and communications need to demonstrate what we can really do for the organization and how our skill and success means the organization can and will be successful. It is when our planning and drive will lead to success in the market. Of course if it is not done with the right balance of strategy, execution and team work than we will fall short and the blemish to marketing will be impossible to erase.
Ideally, the summer was spent planning for this sprint. That was of course, in between fantasies of vacations. The fall sprint should be focused on bringing target audiences back into focus and get yourself onto the radar of major stakeholders. This is really the time of year when marketing budgets are being established and major purchasing decisions are generally being reached. This is the time of year when planning turns into execution.
Given that a lot of plans are being made for 2011 we need to make the most of this time of year. This is a great time of year to engage social media and bring your customers and potential customers in at a new level so they can see you as a more concrete partner in their business. It is also a time to use the more traditional methods and try to engage media partners in a business relationship that will result in the previously mentioned complete market penetration. Lastly, it is the time to stop being the wallflower and become the player in the industry you thought you should be all along.
The final third of the year is when you should really shift into high gear. It is the time of year when marketing and communications need to demonstrate what we can really do for the organization and how our skill and success means the organization can and will be successful. It is when our planning and drive will lead to success in the market. Of course if it is not done with the right balance of strategy, execution and team work than we will fall short and the blemish to marketing will be impossible to erase.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
How too many chefs ruin the brand
I have seen my fair share of cooking shows during my life time. Now the hot chef is Gordon Ramsey but my personal favorite is Julia Child. The reason I always liked Julia is that you were able to see the art, and science, of creation. I always found it amusing that she seemed to find her own cooking did not taste terrible.
One thing I find interesting about Julia Child and chefs in general is that there is a direct analogy between cooking and building a brand. In each case there are unique elements which need to be created, proportioned correctly and then executed in order for the right blend to produce a wonderful bounty. Also, not everyone can do it right and few have the patience to take it to a level of excellence.
Let's stay on the cooking analogy for a minute. While we make like our lemon sole or maybe just a cheeseburger and fries , the final product represents a long journey involving many hands. We seldom think of the farmer who grew the lettuce or the grapes for the wine. Nor do we think of the truck driver who drove the produce to market. But what we do know is that once the products get to the restaurant, the chef and his or her kitchen staff know what to do with them and how to turn them into the incredible edibles we all love to eat.
Ideally this would be true with marketing and branding. Ideally the marketing department would develop copy, work on PR strategy, coordinate design components and be allowed to build a brand. Sadly, as we all know this is rarely the case. More often than not, CEO's and other senior executives like to stick their noses in and order direct changes to the product with little or no input regarding how the marketing team feels regarding the decision. The inverse is just as sad, they don't care enough about marketing to properly fund it and as such instead of buying the fresh lettuce for the salad or the top choice meat, we have to pick through what is left and try and make do.
Let me continue with my chef analogy, could anyone imagine the owner of a restaurant coming in and say, you know we need to keep costs down so from now on everyone gets their meat one style so we need not run extra ovens or in the bar advocate putting apple juice in some of the mixed drink containers arguing that the customers aren't going to notice. Surprisingly that happens to some degree in business. Not that there is active attempts at deception but rather micro-management by people who do not understand the field and think that they know the brand best or even worse don't think in terms of the brand but rather in short term, quarter-to quarter periods.
Of course one problem with being a chef is that someone will always criticize the cooking. That is true with marketing and branding and needs to be taken as part of the job. However the only type of criticism that works is to offer constructive criticism. Saying this is wrong, or not what I had in mind is totally wasteful and useless in development. Rather saying something like, "I would prefer we focus more on the technology as opposed to the design," is a concrete and workable brand criticism. Sadly, this is very rarely heard.
So what is the conclusion to take away from this? Well, I hope it is that marketing and communications people, just like chefs, need to be allowed to work. By doing this we can create a brand which will be stronger and ideally assume market leadership. All good chefs, like good marketing people, value constructive criticism and see it as a means of improvement. What we need from external audiences is the freedom to do our jobs with some feedback both good and bad but most importantly the opportunity to do our jobs!
One thing I find interesting about Julia Child and chefs in general is that there is a direct analogy between cooking and building a brand. In each case there are unique elements which need to be created, proportioned correctly and then executed in order for the right blend to produce a wonderful bounty. Also, not everyone can do it right and few have the patience to take it to a level of excellence.
Let's stay on the cooking analogy for a minute. While we make like our lemon sole or maybe just a cheeseburger and fries , the final product represents a long journey involving many hands. We seldom think of the farmer who grew the lettuce or the grapes for the wine. Nor do we think of the truck driver who drove the produce to market. But what we do know is that once the products get to the restaurant, the chef and his or her kitchen staff know what to do with them and how to turn them into the incredible edibles we all love to eat.
Ideally this would be true with marketing and branding. Ideally the marketing department would develop copy, work on PR strategy, coordinate design components and be allowed to build a brand. Sadly, as we all know this is rarely the case. More often than not, CEO's and other senior executives like to stick their noses in and order direct changes to the product with little or no input regarding how the marketing team feels regarding the decision. The inverse is just as sad, they don't care enough about marketing to properly fund it and as such instead of buying the fresh lettuce for the salad or the top choice meat, we have to pick through what is left and try and make do.
Let me continue with my chef analogy, could anyone imagine the owner of a restaurant coming in and say, you know we need to keep costs down so from now on everyone gets their meat one style so we need not run extra ovens or in the bar advocate putting apple juice in some of the mixed drink containers arguing that the customers aren't going to notice. Surprisingly that happens to some degree in business. Not that there is active attempts at deception but rather micro-management by people who do not understand the field and think that they know the brand best or even worse don't think in terms of the brand but rather in short term, quarter-to quarter periods.
Of course one problem with being a chef is that someone will always criticize the cooking. That is true with marketing and branding and needs to be taken as part of the job. However the only type of criticism that works is to offer constructive criticism. Saying this is wrong, or not what I had in mind is totally wasteful and useless in development. Rather saying something like, "I would prefer we focus more on the technology as opposed to the design," is a concrete and workable brand criticism. Sadly, this is very rarely heard.
So what is the conclusion to take away from this? Well, I hope it is that marketing and communications people, just like chefs, need to be allowed to work. By doing this we can create a brand which will be stronger and ideally assume market leadership. All good chefs, like good marketing people, value constructive criticism and see it as a means of improvement. What we need from external audiences is the freedom to do our jobs with some feedback both good and bad but most importantly the opportunity to do our jobs!
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Most times the greatest threat to a brand comes from within!
Keeping a brand going is no easy task. Well that will win the award for the most obvious statement of the year! But the scary part of the task is that there are so many ways that companies injure themselves when they communicate their brands that sometimes external factors are only a part of the problem. Sometimes, what goes in within the organization is as great a threat to the brand as any external threat.
The recent BP fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico is seen, among other things, as a PR fiasco. I for one don't agree with that sentiment. Certainly the public relations team didn't tell BP management to cut corners on the well, nor did they encourage the CEO and other senior management to make sure foolish and uncaring statements. Of course they do share the blame for allowing these statements to go out as well as for so much incorrect and unclear information to be released.
This is an egregious example of how internal elements pose threats to the brand but there are many more. One of the worst, and BP can be seen as an example of it, is the desire of senior managers to see quarter-to-quarter and lose all focus on the larger picture. The worst example of this is the formula we see with larger companies who wish to manage to earnings and in doing so do fail to nurture the brand and we see no organic growth. The focus is on pleasing shareholders and not driving brand development so we are choosing a diet of candy and soda pop over good healthy food.
There are so many great brands who have died by the side of the road because of the right combination of lack of lack of foresight, complacency, arrogance and downright laziness. Let's keep in mind that brands are not restricted to what you may buy at the local grocery or department store. If you're a small agency or startup, you need to have a brand that sets you apart from the competition. Reputation matters tremendously and the worst part is that while it may take years for a good brand to be built, it can be destroyed in seconds!
Another enemy of brands is senior management. The worst challenge they represent is that they often think in the immediate term and as such do not have the patience to wait for the seeds of a well built marketing plan to fully take root. More often then not, they are pushing the panic button and are worried because they are not seeing immediate changes which they believe should be happening. It often does not matter that we marketing and communications professionals counseled patience, they do not see what they wanted to now they are panicking and want change for changes sake.
So what can be done? Well for one thing, we as marketing and communications people can continue to offer the best counsel that can be done. We can be the firm advocates of protecting the brand and ensuring its natural and organic growth. We can recommend that the brakes be applied when necessary or that we change into another lane when that is called for. Basically our continued expertise and ability to be persuasive will result in a stronger brand. The success or failure of this effort will result from the determination of the marketing and communications people to pursue the course of action that will strengthen the brand.
Sadly, too many of our professional colleagues are willing to do what is popular and what they think the bosses want as opposed to what's right. If we do what's right both for the brand and organization, we will emerge stronger, more successful and ultimately more respect both within and outside the organization.
The recent BP fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico is seen, among other things, as a PR fiasco. I for one don't agree with that sentiment. Certainly the public relations team didn't tell BP management to cut corners on the well, nor did they encourage the CEO and other senior management to make sure foolish and uncaring statements. Of course they do share the blame for allowing these statements to go out as well as for so much incorrect and unclear information to be released.
This is an egregious example of how internal elements pose threats to the brand but there are many more. One of the worst, and BP can be seen as an example of it, is the desire of senior managers to see quarter-to-quarter and lose all focus on the larger picture. The worst example of this is the formula we see with larger companies who wish to manage to earnings and in doing so do fail to nurture the brand and we see no organic growth. The focus is on pleasing shareholders and not driving brand development so we are choosing a diet of candy and soda pop over good healthy food.
There are so many great brands who have died by the side of the road because of the right combination of lack of lack of foresight, complacency, arrogance and downright laziness. Let's keep in mind that brands are not restricted to what you may buy at the local grocery or department store. If you're a small agency or startup, you need to have a brand that sets you apart from the competition. Reputation matters tremendously and the worst part is that while it may take years for a good brand to be built, it can be destroyed in seconds!
Another enemy of brands is senior management. The worst challenge they represent is that they often think in the immediate term and as such do not have the patience to wait for the seeds of a well built marketing plan to fully take root. More often then not, they are pushing the panic button and are worried because they are not seeing immediate changes which they believe should be happening. It often does not matter that we marketing and communications professionals counseled patience, they do not see what they wanted to now they are panicking and want change for changes sake.
So what can be done? Well for one thing, we as marketing and communications people can continue to offer the best counsel that can be done. We can be the firm advocates of protecting the brand and ensuring its natural and organic growth. We can recommend that the brakes be applied when necessary or that we change into another lane when that is called for. Basically our continued expertise and ability to be persuasive will result in a stronger brand. The success or failure of this effort will result from the determination of the marketing and communications people to pursue the course of action that will strengthen the brand.
Sadly, too many of our professional colleagues are willing to do what is popular and what they think the bosses want as opposed to what's right. If we do what's right both for the brand and organization, we will emerge stronger, more successful and ultimately more respect both within and outside the organization.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The failure or communications to think and act long term
I was having drinks with a friend the other night and she mentioned something at work that made her both angry as heck and sick to her stomach. "The names have been changed to protect the wishy washy." She was faced with a looming problem where a product was due to be issued and no one on the product team would commit to having the product ready but still insisted that the product be ready to go public by a certain date to meet quarterly goals. Well the date came closer and closer and it still wasn't ready.
At some point, the point of no return was reached and analysts had to be briefed as did long lead publications. My friend made the recommendation to her bosses that they hold off briefing anyone until the product was ready. The answer was no and that they will be ready there was no need to wait. So as instructed there were some initial briefings and they all went rather coolly since it was obvious that the product was not quite ready. This lead to a strong back lash and discord with in the organization since the product people felt that they were not told there would be such negative backlash and they wished to know why they were lead down the wrong road.
Now I am sure everyone who has worked in communications for more than a day can feel the anger and dissatisfaction of being blamed for doing what you're told. We all know this happens all the time. But I told my friend that a lot of the blame really belonged to her, and the rest of her team involved in this. I did not intend for this to be as harsh as it may sound but it is something that I truly believe.
The greatest error committed here was that the product team was given control over the timetable of communications. There is a need for communications people to maintain control over the communications process in order for the product to properly be delivered to the market. Granted, this is not something that needs to be arbitrary or exclusionary, but it does need to be driven and ultimately controlled by the communications team.
The fundamental problem here as I saw it was that the communications team did not seek to develop a program which benefited the organization and brand above all else. Nor did it think about the aforementioned brand in anything but the short term. Rather, only the immediate and short term was given any thought and any long term vision was subverted. Needless to say the result was chaos. Also, the communications team did not make their expertise a deciding factor in the debate. They allowed external parties to control the entire situation and their unwillingness to stand up for what they believed to be right caused the problem in question.
So what should communications people do? It seems quite simple, they need to do what they are getting paid to do. That is not to make people happy per se, it is to see that the brand is being supported by a clear and consistent communications program. The path of least resistance is one which will always lead to headache and misfortune. There will be times when we communications people will have to assume a strong position and say what we think. We may not come out on top in each discussion, but the point is that we make our best effort and help those who do not know or understand communications properly make the most properly informed decision.
At some point, the point of no return was reached and analysts had to be briefed as did long lead publications. My friend made the recommendation to her bosses that they hold off briefing anyone until the product was ready. The answer was no and that they will be ready there was no need to wait. So as instructed there were some initial briefings and they all went rather coolly since it was obvious that the product was not quite ready. This lead to a strong back lash and discord with in the organization since the product people felt that they were not told there would be such negative backlash and they wished to know why they were lead down the wrong road.
Now I am sure everyone who has worked in communications for more than a day can feel the anger and dissatisfaction of being blamed for doing what you're told. We all know this happens all the time. But I told my friend that a lot of the blame really belonged to her, and the rest of her team involved in this. I did not intend for this to be as harsh as it may sound but it is something that I truly believe.
The greatest error committed here was that the product team was given control over the timetable of communications. There is a need for communications people to maintain control over the communications process in order for the product to properly be delivered to the market. Granted, this is not something that needs to be arbitrary or exclusionary, but it does need to be driven and ultimately controlled by the communications team.
The fundamental problem here as I saw it was that the communications team did not seek to develop a program which benefited the organization and brand above all else. Nor did it think about the aforementioned brand in anything but the short term. Rather, only the immediate and short term was given any thought and any long term vision was subverted. Needless to say the result was chaos. Also, the communications team did not make their expertise a deciding factor in the debate. They allowed external parties to control the entire situation and their unwillingness to stand up for what they believed to be right caused the problem in question.
So what should communications people do? It seems quite simple, they need to do what they are getting paid to do. That is not to make people happy per se, it is to see that the brand is being supported by a clear and consistent communications program. The path of least resistance is one which will always lead to headache and misfortune. There will be times when we communications people will have to assume a strong position and say what we think. We may not come out on top in each discussion, but the point is that we make our best effort and help those who do not know or understand communications properly make the most properly informed decision.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Protecting the Brand: Communications Number One Role
Brand Management is something which a great deal of ink has been spilled over. Most of these pieces are easily forgettable academic tomes, never to see the outside of a classroom. What is interesting though is that while nearly everyone can agree that a brand is important and that marketing should have some control over it, very few can agree on how to best manage and protect a brand.
I think it best to try and figure out first of all, who should not be responsible for managing the brand on a regular basis. I would start off by saying keep the CEO away from the day-to-day management of the brand. Yes, it is true that the CEO has organizational responsibilities that span the entire company and as a result there is the necessity for him or her to have a degree of involvement in brand management. What I would advocate is keep the CEO from micro-managing the brand and thus causing it to ebb and flow with their whims. Let's ignore the fact that micro-managing has been demonstrated to be counterproductive to organizational growth, the fact is that the CEO will be focused on too many things to give the brand the time it needs and, in many cases, the chief will lack the exact expertise to manage the brand and may, in fact, do more harm than good.
The other group who should be kept miles away from brand management is the group who are indecisive or who wish to make decisions they believe will please higher ups and please management. There will be times when hard decisions will be required about the brand and this group tends to either descend into anarchy or flee like rats from a sinking ship. One most also think of the mind set of this group. They tend to think in terms of what is best for them in the near term and have no concept of anything happening five years down the road. A good brand should be built to last for generations not just a few years.
The third group who should be kept away from the brand is people who do not have a background in one of the marketing disciplines. I say this because they first and foremost don't understand the evolutionary process that is both marketing and communications. What happens today was preceded by a historical event. Nothing happens in a vacuum and what happens tomorrow or next week will be the result of things planned and/or executed this week. Sorry to apply the broad brush here but sales people, accountants, engineers what have you just do not think in these terms. Marketing people are best equipped to deal with this type of thought process.
So we come to who should be responsible for protecting the brand. By now I am sure it is no surprise that I say it is the marketing team and specifically it is the communications group within marketing who should manage it. Why do I say this? Basically because communications people are the one group in most organizations who have to be both strategic geniuses and tactical wizards. We have to be both creative and analytical. We have to be able to deal with a CEO one minute, a vendor the next and then someone who maybe just out of school the third.
In addition, communications people are equipped with the necessary tools to think ahead several quarters and are the few groups in the organization who are truly planning for what will transpire. We are the best trained and best equipped members of the organization to deal with crisis situations and we know not only how to react to them but also to prevent them from taking place. Lastly, we are the best equipped members of the organization to work with different groups as we need to be able to speak the languages of finance, tech, health care or what ever group you might have so we are able to offer a concise and accurate statement regarding the brand in virtually any situation.
Protecting the brand is no small feat. It is the organization's most valuable asset but sadly many executives fail to see just how valuable it is, until it is damaged by a crisis they could have prevented. If protection of the brand is left to competent marketing and communications professionals and they are allowed to develop a coherent and far reaching strategy then the organization will thrive. The greatest brands on the market now have one thing in common, strong and exceptional marketing departments. As the old saying goes if your neighbor is digging holes in the ground and finding gold each time he digs then its time you start to dig in your yard.
I think it best to try and figure out first of all, who should not be responsible for managing the brand on a regular basis. I would start off by saying keep the CEO away from the day-to-day management of the brand. Yes, it is true that the CEO has organizational responsibilities that span the entire company and as a result there is the necessity for him or her to have a degree of involvement in brand management. What I would advocate is keep the CEO from micro-managing the brand and thus causing it to ebb and flow with their whims. Let's ignore the fact that micro-managing has been demonstrated to be counterproductive to organizational growth, the fact is that the CEO will be focused on too many things to give the brand the time it needs and, in many cases, the chief will lack the exact expertise to manage the brand and may, in fact, do more harm than good.
The other group who should be kept miles away from brand management is the group who are indecisive or who wish to make decisions they believe will please higher ups and please management. There will be times when hard decisions will be required about the brand and this group tends to either descend into anarchy or flee like rats from a sinking ship. One most also think of the mind set of this group. They tend to think in terms of what is best for them in the near term and have no concept of anything happening five years down the road. A good brand should be built to last for generations not just a few years.
The third group who should be kept away from the brand is people who do not have a background in one of the marketing disciplines. I say this because they first and foremost don't understand the evolutionary process that is both marketing and communications. What happens today was preceded by a historical event. Nothing happens in a vacuum and what happens tomorrow or next week will be the result of things planned and/or executed this week. Sorry to apply the broad brush here but sales people, accountants, engineers what have you just do not think in these terms. Marketing people are best equipped to deal with this type of thought process.
So we come to who should be responsible for protecting the brand. By now I am sure it is no surprise that I say it is the marketing team and specifically it is the communications group within marketing who should manage it. Why do I say this? Basically because communications people are the one group in most organizations who have to be both strategic geniuses and tactical wizards. We have to be both creative and analytical. We have to be able to deal with a CEO one minute, a vendor the next and then someone who maybe just out of school the third.
In addition, communications people are equipped with the necessary tools to think ahead several quarters and are the few groups in the organization who are truly planning for what will transpire. We are the best trained and best equipped members of the organization to deal with crisis situations and we know not only how to react to them but also to prevent them from taking place. Lastly, we are the best equipped members of the organization to work with different groups as we need to be able to speak the languages of finance, tech, health care or what ever group you might have so we are able to offer a concise and accurate statement regarding the brand in virtually any situation.
Protecting the brand is no small feat. It is the organization's most valuable asset but sadly many executives fail to see just how valuable it is, until it is damaged by a crisis they could have prevented. If protection of the brand is left to competent marketing and communications professionals and they are allowed to develop a coherent and far reaching strategy then the organization will thrive. The greatest brands on the market now have one thing in common, strong and exceptional marketing departments. As the old saying goes if your neighbor is digging holes in the ground and finding gold each time he digs then its time you start to dig in your yard.
Friday, July 30, 2010
How to better use communications as a strategic tool
One of the great weakness of communications is that it is often seen as a tactical tool with very little value. As a result, excesses of quantity often result and quality greatly suffers as a result. The root cause of this is often not hard to find, we try to please the higher ups in the organization and wish to be popular, rather than sticking to what we consider to be best and recommending those tools.
Now of course I have heard the universal cop-out to this claim many times before. If we do not do it, then the CEO, VP whomever will simply go out and find someone who will. Well the easy answer to that threat is go ahead. There are lots of bad communications people out there and there are lots of organizations practicing communications badly. This isn't a treat or a desire to see some group fail, rather it is calling the bluff of someone who presumes to know your job better than you do. If you were undergoing heart surgery would you question the cardiologist on how they will operate or the anesthesiologist on what medicines will be used? Of course not.
The first, and I would argue most effective way of ensuring management seeings communications as a strategic tool is to act like it is. Fulfill your roll with authority and decisiveness and get stuff done that helps the organization! I know that all sounds easy but trust me, it's about expertise and accomplishment and not about smoke and mirrors. The phonies and charlatans who live and die by smoke and mirror only get so far and are exposed for what they are. Still their lack of professionalism causes harm to the rest of us who know what we are doing.
Second, the subject of metrics is always a dodgy one in communications but turn the fear and anxiety about this to our advantage. Put firm goals in place and use them. For example when some VP or even the CEO wants to use communications for some irrelevant task like trumping the latest tiny business deal tell them no. In fact, go one better and put them on a strict regimen of so many announcements during a given period so that a strong strategic evaluation is given to the use of any communications tool and it is not done on a simple whim.
Lastly, keep score of what you have done and let the results speak for themselves. If there is an increase in traffic visiting the web site, sales leads, media hits most, if not all of that can be traced back to a well-run communications program. Remember that it is not about feeding massive egos or making an adult feel like a child by being offered a treat. The goal is to build, secure and communicate about a brand and to help secure more business for it. This beats any and all other reasons a communications program exists.
Being a communications person is not easy. There are a few who do the job very well surrounded by those who are not up to the task. It is for those who do the job well to be the leaders and to set the high standards that the rest of the profession can aspire too. By acting professionally and by letting all around us know that we are the best, and most importantly backing it up, we can ensure communications is rightly seen as a strategic tool. Lastly, and most importantly, don't be smug or dismissive. By doing that, you will ensure that are dismissed as someone who is all talk and can not deliver the good. Be confident but not over confident. Be a teacher but not a lecturer. Most important, do the right thing for the job and the brand first and foremost.
Now of course I have heard the universal cop-out to this claim many times before. If we do not do it, then the CEO, VP whomever will simply go out and find someone who will. Well the easy answer to that threat is go ahead. There are lots of bad communications people out there and there are lots of organizations practicing communications badly. This isn't a treat or a desire to see some group fail, rather it is calling the bluff of someone who presumes to know your job better than you do. If you were undergoing heart surgery would you question the cardiologist on how they will operate or the anesthesiologist on what medicines will be used? Of course not.
The first, and I would argue most effective way of ensuring management seeings communications as a strategic tool is to act like it is. Fulfill your roll with authority and decisiveness and get stuff done that helps the organization! I know that all sounds easy but trust me, it's about expertise and accomplishment and not about smoke and mirrors. The phonies and charlatans who live and die by smoke and mirror only get so far and are exposed for what they are. Still their lack of professionalism causes harm to the rest of us who know what we are doing.
Second, the subject of metrics is always a dodgy one in communications but turn the fear and anxiety about this to our advantage. Put firm goals in place and use them. For example when some VP or even the CEO wants to use communications for some irrelevant task like trumping the latest tiny business deal tell them no. In fact, go one better and put them on a strict regimen of so many announcements during a given period so that a strong strategic evaluation is given to the use of any communications tool and it is not done on a simple whim.
Lastly, keep score of what you have done and let the results speak for themselves. If there is an increase in traffic visiting the web site, sales leads, media hits most, if not all of that can be traced back to a well-run communications program. Remember that it is not about feeding massive egos or making an adult feel like a child by being offered a treat. The goal is to build, secure and communicate about a brand and to help secure more business for it. This beats any and all other reasons a communications program exists.
Being a communications person is not easy. There are a few who do the job very well surrounded by those who are not up to the task. It is for those who do the job well to be the leaders and to set the high standards that the rest of the profession can aspire too. By acting professionally and by letting all around us know that we are the best, and most importantly backing it up, we can ensure communications is rightly seen as a strategic tool. Lastly, and most importantly, don't be smug or dismissive. By doing that, you will ensure that are dismissed as someone who is all talk and can not deliver the good. Be confident but not over confident. Be a teacher but not a lecturer. Most important, do the right thing for the job and the brand first and foremost.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The loss of communications, in communications
I was working on a project recently with a colleague and was shocked at some of the writing I was seeing going on. While we all understand and appreciate the need to be proficient in all of the social media aspects that are growing rapidly it is amazing how the long term impacts of these changes in our profession is that we are all becoming weaker. Just as the fast food culture tends to lead to obesity, the style of social media writing leads to weaker writing and communication skills throughout the organization.
Where as in the past communications professional generally learned to write from the same base, be it AP Style or what ever, most communications professionals wrote in the same style and learned to write the same way. This was then shared with new entries into the field and while one could argue about the merits of the AP style, there was a certain standardization which led to a level of professionalism.
Now with the influx of social media into the mix, writing skills have declined sharply and we may be facing a long term crisis in communications. For one thing, the art and skill of crafting a story and turning that into a message is eroding faster than an ocean facing beach. One of the downside of stressing Twitter over traditional writing is that we are telling snippets and not delivering messages. A brief character blurb is often not enough to tell a complete story.
Also, as we all know, proper grammar is simply not being taught. I am thinking of asking for future writing and editing assignments to offer me bonuses on the edits I make. If I were to get a dollar for every split infinitive, missing comma or my own personal favorite the propositional adverb, I could be making something in the low seven figures. I would add to this the over reliance on spell check and the lack of a dictionary in offices. Recently I had to show someone how to look something up in a dictionary and was astounded that they didn't know how to use it.
The other area of failure in communications arises from the managers in both agencies and in the corporate world. More often than not, edits to a document are simply marked and e-mailed back. There are no interactions between manager and employee and no understanding is shared in all too many cases. More often than not the document is hacked to death to make it seem to fit the managers view of the message and not only is no lesson learned, but the message is weakened because the staff member will not wish to challenge the boss.
While I am not going to say social media lacks importance and its role should be lessened, I do believe we need to strengthen the training of staff and managers in how to work to craft stronger messages. This means training, time commitment and the desire to make a uniform commitment to excellence. These are areas where, sadly, we as communications professional are lacking and can improve both easily and quickly.
Where as in the past communications professional generally learned to write from the same base, be it AP Style or what ever, most communications professionals wrote in the same style and learned to write the same way. This was then shared with new entries into the field and while one could argue about the merits of the AP style, there was a certain standardization which led to a level of professionalism.
Now with the influx of social media into the mix, writing skills have declined sharply and we may be facing a long term crisis in communications. For one thing, the art and skill of crafting a story and turning that into a message is eroding faster than an ocean facing beach. One of the downside of stressing Twitter over traditional writing is that we are telling snippets and not delivering messages. A brief character blurb is often not enough to tell a complete story.
Also, as we all know, proper grammar is simply not being taught. I am thinking of asking for future writing and editing assignments to offer me bonuses on the edits I make. If I were to get a dollar for every split infinitive, missing comma or my own personal favorite the propositional adverb, I could be making something in the low seven figures. I would add to this the over reliance on spell check and the lack of a dictionary in offices. Recently I had to show someone how to look something up in a dictionary and was astounded that they didn't know how to use it.
The other area of failure in communications arises from the managers in both agencies and in the corporate world. More often than not, edits to a document are simply marked and e-mailed back. There are no interactions between manager and employee and no understanding is shared in all too many cases. More often than not the document is hacked to death to make it seem to fit the managers view of the message and not only is no lesson learned, but the message is weakened because the staff member will not wish to challenge the boss.
While I am not going to say social media lacks importance and its role should be lessened, I do believe we need to strengthen the training of staff and managers in how to work to craft stronger messages. This means training, time commitment and the desire to make a uniform commitment to excellence. These are areas where, sadly, we as communications professional are lacking and can improve both easily and quickly.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Where is the leadership in Public Relations
A friend sent me an interesting article showing that a Chief Petty Officer in the Coast Guard who was responsible for crafting the government's message about the BP spill also worked for BP's PR agency. While the article was unclear regarding the exact role of this person and if they worked on the BP account it did raise some distributing questions about the roles of public relations, ethics and leadership.
One issue PR people deal with is the concept that we are nothing but spin masters. Basically, many people both outside and, quite sadly, inside the organization, think it is our job to take manure and turn it into lovely fertilizer. The sad fact of the matter is that the PR profession and many of its leaders are the greatest factors in ensuring this is not simply a stereotype, but, sadly the state of affairs in PR.
Going back to the case of the Chief Petty Officer I was reminded of an ethics question posed to both doctors and lawyers in law and medical school respectively. They are basically told that if they need to ask themselves, "is this ethical?" comes up, then it is most likely unethical, or at best a gray area and they should avoid it. While lawyers are hardly seen as the paragons of ethics and doctors can be compromised, the fact is they have a set of rules in their professions which say what is and what isn't wrong.
What's also missing in PR that is found in both professions (legal and medical) is that young professionals entering the field are thrown into the field where they are required to make decisions, act professionally and deliver results. In this respect, PR is quite similar, where we diverge is that the doctor or lawyer is also given the benefit of constant feedback; good, bad or otherwise.
Sadly, in public relations, and marketing too, we see virtually no mentoring like what is seen in most professions. Rather we see an assumption that the person who has been hired at an entry level knows what they are doing and it is up to them to do it right. There is also what I would call a twisted sense among senior levels that this is how they learned it and if you can't swim you shouldn't be in the pool.
This all circles back to the issue about the Coast Guard CPO and BP. No one in an agency setting I have seen conducts anything even approaching real training for their staff. Very few people give honest and educational feedback to a junior PR person so they may learn. Senior PR people do love to bring junior people on the carpet and dress them down and self serving lectures are all a part of office politics but genuine and true leadership that challenges PR people to be critical thinkers and to engage in dialogue is very rare indeed.
I do wish to be clear this is not simply an agency problem. In some respects, the corporate PR world has a greater leadership gap than agencies. For one thing, they are usually held responsible for stroking the ego of a CEO or some other senior executive and telling them what they wish to hear and not the truth. Corporate PR tends to be about turf and privileges and not about doing the best job possible. It does mirror agency life in that junior people are expected to not make any mistakes but, at the same time, avoid asking any questions, even if they may learn from it.
The sad fact of PR is that there is a vacuum of leadership in the PR industry. Yes, that's a broad brush statement and I know personally there are very good leaders in public relations today. But compared to other professions we lack leaders who are willing to be mentors, teachers and to lay down a series of rules that will help define us as a profession. Would you trust a lawyer who wasn't a member of the bar? Would you trust a doctor whose license to practice has been revoked? Then why do we trust PR people who owe their positions to being able to survive the various business cycles. Remember the old story about what survives a nuclear war? Cockroaches and Twinkies? Well PR deserves to have its leadership be true leaders and not just cockroaches and Twinkies.
One issue PR people deal with is the concept that we are nothing but spin masters. Basically, many people both outside and, quite sadly, inside the organization, think it is our job to take manure and turn it into lovely fertilizer. The sad fact of the matter is that the PR profession and many of its leaders are the greatest factors in ensuring this is not simply a stereotype, but, sadly the state of affairs in PR.
Going back to the case of the Chief Petty Officer I was reminded of an ethics question posed to both doctors and lawyers in law and medical school respectively. They are basically told that if they need to ask themselves, "is this ethical?" comes up, then it is most likely unethical, or at best a gray area and they should avoid it. While lawyers are hardly seen as the paragons of ethics and doctors can be compromised, the fact is they have a set of rules in their professions which say what is and what isn't wrong.
What's also missing in PR that is found in both professions (legal and medical) is that young professionals entering the field are thrown into the field where they are required to make decisions, act professionally and deliver results. In this respect, PR is quite similar, where we diverge is that the doctor or lawyer is also given the benefit of constant feedback; good, bad or otherwise.
Sadly, in public relations, and marketing too, we see virtually no mentoring like what is seen in most professions. Rather we see an assumption that the person who has been hired at an entry level knows what they are doing and it is up to them to do it right. There is also what I would call a twisted sense among senior levels that this is how they learned it and if you can't swim you shouldn't be in the pool.
This all circles back to the issue about the Coast Guard CPO and BP. No one in an agency setting I have seen conducts anything even approaching real training for their staff. Very few people give honest and educational feedback to a junior PR person so they may learn. Senior PR people do love to bring junior people on the carpet and dress them down and self serving lectures are all a part of office politics but genuine and true leadership that challenges PR people to be critical thinkers and to engage in dialogue is very rare indeed.
I do wish to be clear this is not simply an agency problem. In some respects, the corporate PR world has a greater leadership gap than agencies. For one thing, they are usually held responsible for stroking the ego of a CEO or some other senior executive and telling them what they wish to hear and not the truth. Corporate PR tends to be about turf and privileges and not about doing the best job possible. It does mirror agency life in that junior people are expected to not make any mistakes but, at the same time, avoid asking any questions, even if they may learn from it.
The sad fact of PR is that there is a vacuum of leadership in the PR industry. Yes, that's a broad brush statement and I know personally there are very good leaders in public relations today. But compared to other professions we lack leaders who are willing to be mentors, teachers and to lay down a series of rules that will help define us as a profession. Would you trust a lawyer who wasn't a member of the bar? Would you trust a doctor whose license to practice has been revoked? Then why do we trust PR people who owe their positions to being able to survive the various business cycles. Remember the old story about what survives a nuclear war? Cockroaches and Twinkies? Well PR deserves to have its leadership be true leaders and not just cockroaches and Twinkies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
