A must read article here.

While it comes as no surprise to me that PR professionals are good ethical thinkers - after all, our jobs are about getting reporters and companies on the same page and making both camps understand the 'bigger picture' - what I found fascinating was that journalists were up there with PR folks on the ethical scale.

Now, I don't find this surprising, but I did find it fascinating how the two professions that are most often viewed as being at odds - PR folks and journalists - are both highly regarded for their ethics.

It may also explain why I find that journalists and PR folks are working better together than ever before - perhaps enough time has gone by and enough interaction has taken place that they finally see each other in a realistic light. That the PR person understands that (the majority of) reporters are not out to malign you just in the name of a good story and reporters understand that (the majority of) PR folks are not looking to manipulate the press for a short-term gain (especially at the cost of their organization's long-term reputation).

I think this also explains a lot of the stress that PR folks experience in their jobs - it's an almost intangible stress. Their self-imposed standard of living up to a level of ethical commitment to the truth can sometimes be an impossible task - because as I stated in a previous post, sometimes all you have to work with is a whole bunch of people with different opinions. 

From personal experience, I can say that 95% of the stress associated with doing PR has been trying to live up to the highest standard of honesty and trust in my communications activities. Any PR person will tell you, the pursuit of this goal (which I genuinely believe is in the best interest of any organization) will often cause you to come to (metaphorical) blows with colleagues.

I've known a lot of PR folks in my time who would openly admit going home after a long days work with a genuine sense of guilt that they failed to fight harder to change the 'hearts and minds' of colleagues who collectively had decided to cut corners that shouldn't be cut.

But PR folks are human and sometimes you are in a lose lose situation - you can either get drained from swimming against the current or you can get drained from the personal toll you feel from not living up to your sense of what is right.

I think the key for most PR folks is to 'fight the good fight' - to be a voice for what you think is right and accept that it's not always going to change 'hearts and minds' - but being OK with losing that fight knowing that there will be days where you win a couple. The alternative to this view is either becoming apathetic, demoralized or angry - all of which will make you ineffective in your job and cause your career to spill over in a negative way in to your personal life.

It never really sunk in that, when I think about it, almost every single time I've spoken with a PR person who was on the verge of throwing up their hands and saying 'Screw this!" - their complaint has always been that the environment they are in is not living up to their perception of what is 'right'. They take it to heart and really get stressed and burned-out having to fight people to do the right thing.

In my view this 'reality of the job' should be taught in public relations education because for most PR folks whose careers explode, or who simply stop performing well in their job, it almost always (in my opinion) ties back to their sense of ethics and being unable to cope with those ethics being compromised (or worse, being seen as a negative by colleagues).

A very common phenomena in corporations is group think. PR folks are used to sitting around a table of say 10, 15 or even 20 people (often with a C-level executive there) and watching them all come to a consensus that makes no sense (or that only partially makes sense) - but they drive to that consensus because they want to get on with their day. A decision has to be made after all. Yet one of a PR person's greatest values to an organization is to have the courage to go against group think - to stand up and say 'Folks, this is not going to fly in the public arena.'

It's a tough thing to do, but if you aren't prepared to do it, you're going to hate your job because you're going to go home at the end of the day with the knowledge that you don't believe in what you are communicating. Learning how to go against the group without being a 'negative nelly' is one of the most valuable skills a PR person can develop - and one that benefits organizations tremendously in the long run.

This is a good example of why addressing substance abuse is such an important issue to society today (and why I'm really enjoying my new job at CCSA).

When you really think about it (or at least when I do), the evolution of the human race is really about the on-going struggle of counterbalancing human propensity for harm. As organisms made of flesh and bone and as organisms with this thing called a brain that interprets, interacts and tries to deal with 'reality' - people often find themselves in difficult situations that ultimately lead to some form of harm.

When I think out towards the future, whether it be 50, 100, or a 1,000 years down the road, our evolution - spiritually, physically, technologically - seems to hinge on our capacity to figure out ways of reducing harm. Whether that be a cure for cancer, solution to world hunger or dealing with addictions.

Reducing harm, to me, is another way of saying 'human evolution' - or in the historical sense 'fighting the good fight'.

Barney Frank, from a PR perspective, does everything wrong... and for that exact reason, he does everything right.

The only trump card in PR is authenticity. True, 100% authenticity - not 98% authenticity, but 100% authenticity... will trump every PR rule in the book. Because authenticity communicates honesty and honesty is the number one variable in people taking an interest in what you are saying.

Obama, from a PR perspective, does everything right. Hands down he is the best PR capable president the US has ever had (with Clinton and Regan being close behind). Yet even Obama must do everything right. When he's off his game, things blow up in his face.

Frank does everything wrong and he always walks away unscathed. By no means would I suggest anyone ever use Frank as a model for how to communicate, because most people simply don't have the capacity to live with the consequences of being as 'frank' as Frank is... but for him, it's a formula that breaks all the rules and works.

His latest barb at a townhall had me busting out laughing.

A new report has come out showing that when Canadians lose their jobs, they find new ones within 15 weeks on average. You can read the story here.

It's nice to see some good news stories about unemployment.

All that said, from a PR perspective, I have to say it's been disappointing how the media has covered this recession. I have yet to see a one-hour primetime special on the recession - a thoughtful look at the state of your average American or Canadian and how they are coping - investigative journalism if you will.

Instead the media has really latched on to the stats and trends analysis - almost taking their cue from the financial media, who rightly so, focus in on whatever indicators are released in a given week (housing, unemployment, exports, inventory, etc.).

Has the micro reality become irrelevant? Are the only things that matter anymore are the macro trends? And I wonder why this is. Is it that we have so many university educated citizens now that the viewing audience wants forecast / quantitative information? Is the story of the common man no longer appealing to the common man?

Maybe it's that PR folks have become so good at filling the news cycle with reports, studies and data-based information and there is no one promoting the 'common man' type of stories.

I don't have the answers on this one, but it's a phenomena that's been unfolding now for at least the past four years. It will be interesting to see if the media swings back to more qualitative stories, or if they continue with their obsession over quantitative data.

When the Iraq war broke out we hardly got any quantitative data, the coverage was all qualitative - on the ground with the soldiers capturing the experience of going to war. 

Yet at around year four the media pulled back from that and started covering the war from a quantitative perspective - how much it was costing, how many soldiers were dying, etc.

It's a fascinating phenomena how the media moves between qualitative and quantitative focus.
 

It's interesting that journalists are asking the White House to stop giving reporters 'off the record' speeches because bloggers ends up posting the information online and getting the scoop over traditional media who adhere to the off-the-record requests. You can read more here

I have to say I agree with this. I've never been much of a fan of the whole off-the-record practice. To be a good PR person requires sifting through all the facts and information associated with a given item and determining exactly what the organization can say about that item. In essence, figuring out what is 'factually' the truth.

While that sounds simple, it is often extremely complicated for a very simple reason... opinions are not truths - and sifting through opinions and facts can be challenging. Take the Nokia controversy over selling communications monitoring services to the Iranian government. When that story broke I'm sure the PR person suddenly scrambled to collect the facts so that when the media called they could tell them what the details were.

To collect the facts they probably had to get in touch with 20 different people, each of whom would have had a different 'opinion' of what the 'facts' were. Some may not even have been reachable - whether they were travelling, on vacation, over booked in meetings, ducking the issue (yes, as hard as it is to believe, employees will sometimes avoid the PR person because they don't want to be connected to something that might 'blow up') etc.

So the poor PR person spends days talking to a bunch of different people trying to get to the bottom of exactly what went on and what the facts are. Meanwhile a journalist is watching their watch thinking 'C'mon, what's taking so long? You guys must be working on how you are going to 'spin' this. This must be one juicy story I've stumbled on.'

In reality, the story often isn't juicy but rather the PR person is trying to gather all the facts so that they are clearly and honestly giving the reporter the information they need. Sometimes, when a company has done something wrong, there is even further delay, not in terms of creating 'spin' but in getting management to address what they are going to do in response to the situation.

The whole 'off the record' phenomena, if you ask me, comes out of PR folks wanting to let journalists know the facts prior to them officially finishing their fact collection. It's kind of like a preliminary findings update - which are subject to change - hence the 'off the record' request - basically "What I'm telling you is the truth, as I know it, right now. But this is off the record, because I still have more people I have to talk to."

One thing I will say though and this is tremendous kudos to most journalist, is that they get it. I'm not really sure how or why they have come to get it... perhaps it's that enough journalists have taken a crack at doing corporate PR, perhaps it's the fact that PR folks are now a part of every organization and exposure that has created to the PR process, or perhaps it's the variety of events in which PR folks and journalists intermingle and get to know each other... whatever the reason, most journalists today have come to see PR persons as being allies, not their enemies.

The PR person is the one who breaks their back doing all the leg work internally to get the journalist the information they need - and journalists have come to understand that when they aren't getting what they need it's rarely because the PR person is trying to manipulate them. It's almost always a function of delays associated with internal operations - sometimes something as simple as the person who has the actual 'facts' is on vacation. 

There are days where I think PR might be one of the most stressful jobs on the planet. When you've got a reporter asking you "I don't understand why you can't just answer the question?" combined with 20 different people with 20 different opinions and trying to sort out what the company can stand behind publicly as 'fact' - it's enough to drive you nuts sometimes.

The 'off the record' comment is appealing. It's like tossing the hungry pit bull a snack and saying - 'Just give me a little more time and I'll get you a full meal.'  But the problem is that it hurts the organization and the reporter in the long run - because it changes the communications process from one of honesty and factually based information sharing - to one of 'facts subject to change', which while being  well intentioned undermines the commitment to honesty and transparency that both organizations and journalists should be adhering to.

I think both PR folks and journalists have to continue to see that they are both after the same thing and that both are facing the same obstacles. That PR folks are a journalist's greatest champion within an organization - our jobs exist, to a great degree, to service them.

I can say personally, nothing is more satisfying than dealing with reporters who understand what a 'day in the life' of a PR person is like. And I think I can say with relative confidence that journalists appreciate PR folks who understand the pressures and constraints they are under and do their best to help them get what they need for their story. In both scenarios, 'off the record' commentary diminishes the final product for both camps and as a result ultimately erodes the working relationship between reporters and PR folks. 

For those who know me, they know that I'm a frugal shopper. I've mastered the art of delayed gratification and tend to only buy things when they are on sale.

Anyway, I thought his ad I recently received in my email (see picture below) from Canadian Tire was the perfect example of how marketing and PR differ. The ad makes the big bold statement of "Up to 80% off" - and yet, within the ad, there isn't a single item displayed that is actually 80% off!

So to find these magical 80% off items I have to click to see their flyer. After I do that, I can guarantee you that I'll have to go through 30 pages of items only to find some ballpoint pen that is normally $2 bucks on sale for 40 cents.

This is a perfect example of marketing not showing 'respect' to their customer - and doing whatever they feel it will take to get that customer to click-through and increase the opportunity of them buying goods. This isn't 'bad' per se, just short sighted.

I'm starting to get  ticked me off with the ads I get in my email every week. As a consumer I want a company to understand my buying needs - and one of those needs is to get an accurate representation of what you are offering me.

What's annoying with this particular ad is that Canadian Tire is a great company. They have good products, good service and are running a strong operation. They don't need to engage in this type of over-the-top marketing. They should be marketing their strengths, building their brand and communicating the fact they have 25-50% off staple items - not taking the simplistic route of thinking 'If we show people 80% off they will flock to the store and then will end up buying all the things they really need which aren't 80% off.'

I can tell you that if they had a PR person consulting on this ad they would have told them not to over-hype their offering. At some point I'll do a top 10 rules of PR and when I do, one of those rules will be: Know your strengths and play to your strengths! Massive 80% discounts on ballpoint pens (or whatever) is not Canadian Tire's real strength. 

You know, I have a lot of respect for reporters. It's a tough job, having to dig through a mountain of facts, find the salient points and then write a story - all on a tight deadline. It's not a job I'd want.

But I have to admit, stories like this would be fun to cover.

Watch sales of M&M and Blue Gatorade go through the roof over the next year.

Now this story is a great example of where social media could be a huge asset. I mean, traditional marketing doesn't really give M&M or Gatorade an opportunity to jump on this news. Nor does PR really -  are they going to do a news release announcing that their blue M&M's could help cure spinal injuries? Can you say 'lawsuit' ? =)

This is where a blog comes in handy. It allows your company to respond to these events, but in a 'non-official' way, where you simply 'join the conversation' as opposed to making official corporate statements.

Interesting note: M&M has a fantastic interactive corporate site. They even have a twitter page. But guess what? They have no blog - which would have been a perfect medium to highlight this blue M&M story!

Gatorade has a video flash intensive site, but no social media. Personally I found the site annoying and hard to navigate. The site has no blog or social media aspects to it (that I can tell) and so they also had no ability to even acknowledge this quirky 'Brilliant Blue G" story.

You can visit M&M here
You can visit Gatorade here

These kinds of articles always make me scratch my head. Forbes has named ExxonMobil its green company of the year - you can read the story here.

The logic behind this is that ExxonMobil could turn into one of the world's largest distributors of natural gas - and its pursuit of natural gas therefore makes it the green company of the year.

I just don't get how Forbes put this logic together. I mean, great, kudos to ExxonMobil for pursuing alternative energy sources that are cleaner than oil or coal... but the notion that they are doing this out of a 'green' motive is a bit hard to believe.

It's business - basic supply and demand / profits and margins of the energy sector. ExxonMobil is merely getting out in front of a curve that everyone sees coming.

I guess I see this sort of like giving executives at AIG an award for implementing regulations AFTER years of selling unregulated dangerous products. Yes, of course, kudos for going in the right direction in the end.... but does that mean you should be viewed as 'most ethical business of the year' ?

Just to be clear, I have no beef with Exxon, it's actually Forbes that makes me scratch my head. Pat Exxon on the back, do a feature story on their future commitment to natural gas... but to call them the Green Company of the Year?

Anyone remember Valdez? I mean, these things happen when you transport oil, just like planes and cars crash or trains come off the rails once in a blue moon - it's just the reality of things that move, eventually they will crash.  But that reality also, in my mind, disqualifies you from ever getting an award for being 'green' - it doesn't mean you are evil, but it doesn't make sense to call you 'green' either.

Digital Readiness recently put out survey findings that looked at the role of marketing and PR in social media. The findings showed that when it comes to social media, whether in public or private sector organizations, PR takes the lead on social media initiatives.  You can read the report here.

The findings really aren't surprising. As I've said many times, marketing is more of a 'take it or leave it' form of communication. Whereas PR is more about dialogue or conversation communications - 'tell me your concerns and let me inform you of our proposition within that context.'

Marketing folks, from my experience, have always been very uncomfortable with 'conversations', because they don't fit nicely into a neat little package that is in line with their value propositions. PR on the other hand is use to operating in a give and take environment, one that is often filled with misconceptions and biased views.

PR professionals are use to reporters, journalists, customers, employees, etc. - coming to them with 'I don't understand what you are saying... you said this but what about...' type of questions. PR folks then have to bridge the divide between what an organization is 'marketing' and the public's desire for more details.

So it's no surprise that any form of media / communication that allows for the public to provide feedback would end up in PR's domain.

Tell most marketing folks that they will have to interact with the public and address their concerns and they will cringe. This is also why PR is often so critical of marketing initiatives - because they are the ones who will have to deal face-to-face with reporters and the public.  For this reason, whatever is 'marketed' had better also have some depth and rationale to it otherwise PR folks are left out to dry.

Another quick note: I find surveys like this need to be taken with a grain of salt. To a degree they create a false impression that what's important is who is running the social media aspects within an organization. But social media is just another tactical tool - what is so much more important continues to be what you actually saying. I can see employers reading a report like this and thinking 'I need to hire the best social media PR person I can find.'  Wrong, wrong wrong!

What employers need to focus on is hiring PR folks who are good at PR. If they are good at PR - from message creation to servicing publics' needs - then social media is just another outreach tool. If you get someone who is bad at PR, then social media is just another tool for exposing your weaknesses in messaging to a greater audience.

More of a marketing thing, than a PR thing, but I had to reference MedScape's iPhone app, and especially the flash marketing piece they did for it. Great example of an organization leveraging technology to advance its service offering and then following through with an articulation of that offering in a way that folks will understand.

Doctors may be smart, but they aren't always technology enthusiasts. So articulating your product in a way that creates a sense of comfort with its simplicity and value is important. I'm always amazed at companies who have great products and then market it with a two-page brochure that leaves you wondering what exactly the product does. Kudos for MedScape for putting some marketing spit and polish behind their market offering.

You can view the MedScape flash presentation here