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.

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!

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.

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.

Is your brand dying because you are trying to save it?

There is an old back yard gardeners adage that the one that kills a garden above all else is over attentiveness. Some people obsess over the slightest details regarding their gardens and as a result the garden suffers. The same can be said about brands, in some environments the corporate senior executive be it a division head or a CEO can be so focused on saving the brand that they may end up being blind to the fact they are in turn killing that which they are trying to save.

I have seen with my own eyes many otherwise strong, or relatively strong brands, which are hacked to pieces because someone higher up believes the brand is in some type of danger. Either from competition or complacency but in danger non-the-less. What is both sad and ironic is that when these people take drastic and, often unnecessary steps, to fix the problem the result is greater loss and more disruption. This reinforces the first impression that they were right about the need for drastic change and results in more change.

This second wave of change is often unneeded and even more destructive than the first wave was. More importantly it results in both customers and employees questioning the future of the brand and if management really has solved a problem or is fighting some type of hydra where two problems will emerge for each one fixed.

Obviously a brand needs to be nurtured like any plant in a garden. It needs the right materials to grow on and most importantly needs patience to reach full maturity. A farmer does not go into his or her field and pull tiny corn stalks out of the ground. Rather, they wait until the product is primed for market and that is the philosophy that today's senior executives would be smart to take as their example.

A brand will succeed if given the right amount of care and devotion. You need to take the appropriate steps and consult with the right experts to ensure both brand survival and long-term health. But you also need to let the brand grow on its own accord and be careful not to smother the brand with over attentiveness. Make sure that your cure is not worse than the illness in question.

Protecting the brand from internal interlopers

The organization's brand is one thing that people cant help but offer input on how to improve. In some regards, managing a brand is similar to managing a sports team. You have every person around you offering you what they consider to be essential input regarding how to run the brand. When something goes wrong, as it is bound to do, these people will see you as the person responsible since you did not follow their advice. Even if there advice was completely ridiculous and silly the arm chair brand managers out there believe that their advice was difference between success and failure.

Another key aspect for brand managers in protecting their brand is to resist the urge to react to events which have already occurred. There is an old expression that goes "you can't drive a car by looking in the rear view mirror." That is ever so true in marketing and communications. But still many non-marketing people will come up and argue that such and such an event has occurred and we need to make adjustments based on it. Now I can not argue in all cases not to make the changes, but there are times when you need to review if the change is being made based on fear or some other type of knee-jerk reaction.

If there is the need to make a change, first off, make sure that the need is solid and dead on. Don't be afraid to say no and to push back on those pushing for change. Remember, you are the guardian of the brand so it is ultimately your responsibility. Review suggestions for change with an open and careful mind. Also, remember that protecting the brand does not mean keeping it away from any changes. If someone were to argue for a particular course of action look at what they are saying and feel free to cherry pick the parts you think might work from those parts you think are not useful.

Lastly, set the ground rules for any changes to the brand. Don't forget that as a marketing and communications person it falls to you to protect the brand. Put the onus onto the person suggestion the change to educate you as to why the change is necessary. Also, keep the participants in any brand change to a bare minimum . There is no need to have a grand meeting involving everyone from the CEO on down to the person who empties the waste baskets. You and the person suggesting change are the parties to the exchange. I would recommend limiting the meeting to just that. From there you can form a solid relationship which allows for two way conversation that will build a strong brand rather than a massive hodgepodge which tries to make everyone happy and leaves no one happy.

When the boss is wrong!

One of the hardest things to do now or, for that matter, is to tell the boss that you disagree with them and believe they are wrong with their conclusions. We seem to have morphed into a culture where the boss is as close to a deity as anything else. What ever the boss says is like Moses coming down from the mountain top with commandments. More often than not the boss is wrong and can make poor decisions based on incomplete information or information that is just out and out wrong.

As a marketing and public relations person you have a very strong need to hold the fort as it were and make sure that nothing is done to harm the brand, which we are responsible for defending. In many circumstances, higher ups will wish to please their own higher ups and will say "hey, just do this." All marketing and public relations people have an obligation to push back when needed and say, "no that is not really in the organization's best interests." Now of course it goes without saying that you need to have your facts and arguments ready if you are going to do this. It should not be a fight over ego or territory.

Of course one has to set a limit regarding what they are willing to do. Trying to turn back the tide is of course a fool's errand and it is more likely than being bombastic and picking fights every time, one should choose the course of education. Being able to point out an example of when the wrong choice was made and how you might have handled it differently is an ideal teaching moment, to use a phrase from last week.

One thing marketing and public relations people also need to do a better job on is educating higher ups on what their role is. One example is from an organization where I previously worked. They were very news release happy. To the point where they were doing 2 to 3 per week. All of it was white noise and senior executives, including the CEO expected full front page coverage for each announcement. Needless to say nothing happened and I was able to tell them why.

At first I met a lot of resistance and the always laughable, "you don't know what you are talking about." So I put them on a diet and limited releases to 1-2 per month. This resulted in a more deliberative fashion to the development of news releases, a more strategic usage of PR and in the long run, strong relationships with the news media.

So the key here is education, fact and ultimately endurance. Educating the boss is not a sprint. Far from it, this will be a marathon and not a sprint! But ultimately if you have strength and perseverance you will prevail!