Bruce Madden, co-founder and Director of BlueChip Communication, attended Day Two of the Wraps, Platforms and Masterfunds Conference in the Hunter Valley. Here is his take on the day.
To summarise the mood of the retail IDPS industry, gathered together to discuss vital business matters in the Hunter Valley these past two days, one reaches for synonyms to describe the twin notions of fear and rejuvenation.
The fear bit is easy, but type 'rejuvenation' and hit Shift F7 on your Microsoft Word software and a number of useful ideas pop up, including:
Transformation; upgrading; innovation; reconstruction; renewal; renovation; rebuilding and revolution.
These aptly describe the challenge and opportunity ahead of the master funds and wrap industry in these post GFC days of an uncertain future, and a number of 'wildcard unknowns' posed by the Cooper and Henry Reviews and the Ripoll Parliamentary Joint Committee inquiry.
As a Financial Services communication consultancy, our firm spends much time thinking hard about how the entire FS industry - from retail advice to unit trusts and platforms to industry super and SMSFs - will fare and communicate to their stakeholders moving forward. The great challenge our industry faces today is that - even with increased government regulatory intervention, no single sector or interest can prosper in isolation.
For example, much has been made about the 'us-versus-them' dynamic that has characterized the retail and industry fund sectors. I sense a softening of this perception - that this view is seen as a crude and unhelpful depiction of a more complex dynamic. In fact, as was discussed at this morning's session, there is greater interdependence and co-operation required from all sectors, particularly the retail platforms and industry funds.
An example eloquently cited by Tria Investment Partners partner Andrew Baker is the provision of advice: how does an average Industry Fund, with $15bn FUM, and 750,000 members find a solution to its looming advice service problem? As Andrew posed: the industry funds have a buy or build mentality: if they don't buy in services, they will build it themselves. Either way, there is great opportunity both for the retail industry to remove its real or perceived conflicts and for each of the sectors to commence productive discussions about delivering to the needs of Australians.
That's the rejuvenation part - for the retail industry to throw out the old, embracing a new, transformational system of innovation built around what is appropriate, ethical and transparent for the end consumer.
So much for the challenge: what about the fear in this equation?
To be blunt: the retail industry's greatest fears are that the Cooper Review makes sweeping, revolutionary recommendations that shoot an arrow head deep into the heart of its current model.
That the Cooper barb pierces the current bloat of platform rebates, commissions, preferred partner schemes, volume bonuses etc; that he also mandates for a simple, embedded advice/product model at one per cent MER; that he renders unviable any underperforming investment managers who take a fee for delivering benchmark or sub-benchmark performance; that greater transparency prevails which may threaten existing business models.
There is also the legitimate fear that market forces will not be allowed to prevail - replaced by further government intervention, or a system of interventionist product creation delivered by well-meaning but naïve public servants in Treasury.
The ultimate challenge - as the retail industry spends the coming weeks and months reflecting on these issues and drawing up its submissions - is to find some greater harmony beyond the political rhetoric and commercial interest.
To build a viable and saleable business model that sustains healthy outcomes for all industry stakeholders, which transcends the unhelpful dogma approach. Sound simple?
The inventor of such a system would surely be up for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Day One at the 9th Annual Wraps, Platforms & Masterfunds Conference
Bruce Madden is my fellow co-founder and a Director of BlueChip Communication. We attended one of the major Australian wealth management industry events together last week. Here's his summary of Day 1
Called "After the Storm" the 9th Annual Wraps, Platforms and Masterfunds Conference commenced in the Hunter Valley, NSW last Thursday, 3 September.
The event has attracted over 200 delegates from the retail financial services industry to debate and unravel the events following the Global Financial Crisis, and the what next for an industry under the pressure of several government inquiries (Ripoll, Cooper, Henry et al); a disenfranchised investor base and the prospect of looming regulation.
The primary themes?
There were a few but chief among them was trust. Or more pointedly, how to regain the trust of the poor burned investor. Perhaps somewhat curiously, or in recognition of the primary role that financial planners play with the industry's overall reputation, the conference spent much of the day debating the role of advice and the planning industry.
My view is that this is a clear sign that master funds and wrap administration platforms remain inextricably linked to the advice process (i.e.: a platform is a product not a service, and it is a product that is sold, not bought) - various speakers discussed their strategy to overcome the risk of further fragmentation of their reputation among investors.
MLC, which through its platform, Master Key, eschewed adviser commissions in 2006, stood to bask in the warm glow of vindication following its courageous public shift three years ago. Richard Nunn, the Head of Advice and Marketing at MLC / NAB described how the inquiry rate from advisers seeking to join the MLC affiliated advice businesses - in light of the many signals pointing to the demise of commissions - had recently increased markedly.
CBA Distribution Head, Paul Barrett, described the need to drive greater comprehension of financial products and services among the end investor, so that "all parts of the value chain take responsibility for their actions." In other words, creating better informed consent from investors about where their money is being invested and why. Or, put another way, to stop outsourcing our intelligence.
Other trends observed? The excellent research of Investment Trends showed advisers seeking safe investment harbours by investing in cash, and direct 'blue chip' shares; the rise of ETFs and indexing as investment products (driven by the desire to reduce costs wherever possible); an increase in the interest of using capital protected structured product (a la AXA North), and believe it or not, the selective increased use of gearing strategies on the basis of historically low asset prices, coupled with low interest rates... (now think about that for a mixed bag of counterintuitive trends!)
Other themes explored included new technology (including an excellent run down of BlueChip client Payment Adviser and its smart technology) and the external threats of regulation, markets and of course managing one's reputation (and FUM) after a crisis.
Called "After the Storm" the 9th Annual Wraps, Platforms and Masterfunds Conference commenced in the Hunter Valley, NSW last Thursday, 3 September.
The event has attracted over 200 delegates from the retail financial services industry to debate and unravel the events following the Global Financial Crisis, and the what next for an industry under the pressure of several government inquiries (Ripoll, Cooper, Henry et al); a disenfranchised investor base and the prospect of looming regulation.
The primary themes?
There were a few but chief among them was trust. Or more pointedly, how to regain the trust of the poor burned investor. Perhaps somewhat curiously, or in recognition of the primary role that financial planners play with the industry's overall reputation, the conference spent much of the day debating the role of advice and the planning industry.
My view is that this is a clear sign that master funds and wrap administration platforms remain inextricably linked to the advice process (i.e.: a platform is a product not a service, and it is a product that is sold, not bought) - various speakers discussed their strategy to overcome the risk of further fragmentation of their reputation among investors.
MLC, which through its platform, Master Key, eschewed adviser commissions in 2006, stood to bask in the warm glow of vindication following its courageous public shift three years ago. Richard Nunn, the Head of Advice and Marketing at MLC / NAB described how the inquiry rate from advisers seeking to join the MLC affiliated advice businesses - in light of the many signals pointing to the demise of commissions - had recently increased markedly.
CBA Distribution Head, Paul Barrett, described the need to drive greater comprehension of financial products and services among the end investor, so that "all parts of the value chain take responsibility for their actions." In other words, creating better informed consent from investors about where their money is being invested and why. Or, put another way, to stop outsourcing our intelligence.
Other trends observed? The excellent research of Investment Trends showed advisers seeking safe investment harbours by investing in cash, and direct 'blue chip' shares; the rise of ETFs and indexing as investment products (driven by the desire to reduce costs wherever possible); an increase in the interest of using capital protected structured product (a la AXA North), and believe it or not, the selective increased use of gearing strategies on the basis of historically low asset prices, coupled with low interest rates... (now think about that for a mixed bag of counterintuitive trends!)
Other themes explored included new technology (including an excellent run down of BlueChip client Payment Adviser and its smart technology) and the external threats of regulation, markets and of course managing one's reputation (and FUM) after a crisis.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Managing Reputation Risk: An ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure
Managing Reputation Risk: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in many instances
This blog about reputation risk from the Reptutation Institute caught my eye because BlueChip's issues/reputation risk kit has had a serious work out since January 2008.
Of course financial services organisations, be they large, small, new or established, have found themselves needing to manage reputation risk far more closely in the the last two years than ever before.
Suddenly financial services public relations switched gear from the occaisional perceptual crisis and lots of marketing to lots of perceptual crises and the odd bit of marketing support.
Hence the many calls we've had that start "We've got a problem. It's highly sensitive, and we think we need help in case it becomes public/when it becomes public/so that it doesn't ever become public/now that's become public."
As communication or marketing professionals our key contacts inside client organisations already know that reputation risk prevention is better than cure. What they struggle with is getting the CEO and executve team to buy that, and to invest the time and money needed to really properly risk manage their their reputation with anything appoaching the care factor applied to, say, financial risk.
Dr. Majorie Dijkstra of the Reputation Institute gives a four-step process for managing reputation risk, summarised below:
1. Risk identification - assessing the gap between stakeholder’s perceptions and beliefs and the actual performance of the company.
2. Prioritisation (risks and stakeholders) - assessing the probability of risks and the impact of the risk on reputation.
3. Mitigation - assessing the best response based on controllability of risk, the impact of risk on the business across stakeholders and the cost of implementing the strategy.
4. Monitoring - closely monitoring changes in stakeholder’s beliefs and expectation that may affect reputation.
BlueChip's process is similar:
1. Identification: through scenario planning (what are all the things that could go wrong here and where might that leave us??) risk logs and context analysis (e.g. media commentary or sentiment around a particular issue)
2. Prioritisation: through risk logs/workshops and stakeholder analysis
3. Response: through management action and communication strategy & action plans/actions/running orders across stakeholders. We include monitoring in this part and step 1!
4. Embedding: as often as not, whatever led to the issue has it's roots in longer term organisational issues. The only way to prevent similar issues in the future is to look back at those root causes and address them going forward through conscious management and communication behaviour.
When capable in house communicators or trusted consultants are allowed to complete step 4 we're able to help prevent a whole truckload of potential trouble.
Of course not everyone on the senior team necessarily takes that at face value.
I've always found that having that risk log or scenario planning from step 1 to hand, fleshed out with some of the more scary potential outcomes, tends to help colleagues focus on the potential downside of not managing reputation risk!
This blog about reputation risk from the Reptutation Institute caught my eye because BlueChip's issues/reputation risk kit has had a serious work out since January 2008.
Of course financial services organisations, be they large, small, new or established, have found themselves needing to manage reputation risk far more closely in the the last two years than ever before.
Suddenly financial services public relations switched gear from the occaisional perceptual crisis and lots of marketing to lots of perceptual crises and the odd bit of marketing support.
Hence the many calls we've had that start "We've got a problem. It's highly sensitive, and we think we need help in case it becomes public/when it becomes public/so that it doesn't ever become public/now that's become public."
As communication or marketing professionals our key contacts inside client organisations already know that reputation risk prevention is better than cure. What they struggle with is getting the CEO and executve team to buy that, and to invest the time and money needed to really properly risk manage their their reputation with anything appoaching the care factor applied to, say, financial risk.
Dr. Majorie Dijkstra of the Reputation Institute gives a four-step process for managing reputation risk, summarised below:
1. Risk identification - assessing the gap between stakeholder’s perceptions and beliefs and the actual performance of the company.
2. Prioritisation (risks and stakeholders) - assessing the probability of risks and the impact of the risk on reputation.
3. Mitigation - assessing the best response based on controllability of risk, the impact of risk on the business across stakeholders and the cost of implementing the strategy.
4. Monitoring - closely monitoring changes in stakeholder’s beliefs and expectation that may affect reputation.
BlueChip's process is similar:
1. Identification: through scenario planning (what are all the things that could go wrong here and where might that leave us??) risk logs and context analysis (e.g. media commentary or sentiment around a particular issue)
2. Prioritisation: through risk logs/workshops and stakeholder analysis
3. Response: through management action and communication strategy & action plans/actions/running orders across stakeholders. We include monitoring in this part and step 1!
4. Embedding: as often as not, whatever led to the issue has it's roots in longer term organisational issues. The only way to prevent similar issues in the future is to look back at those root causes and address them going forward through conscious management and communication behaviour.
When capable in house communicators or trusted consultants are allowed to complete step 4 we're able to help prevent a whole truckload of potential trouble.
Of course not everyone on the senior team necessarily takes that at face value.
I've always found that having that risk log or scenario planning from step 1 to hand, fleshed out with some of the more scary potential outcomes, tends to help colleagues focus on the potential downside of not managing reputation risk!
Sunday, August 23, 2009
How to show you genuinely care about all 1 million customers
Many moons ago, in the years leading up to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, my then employer, AMP ran one of THE most successful financial services advertising campaigns of the decade.
Enter Vicki Williams, a customer service staff member from AMP in Perth. Vicki was the winner of competition conceived by the agency (Leo Burnett) and run among AMP staff to produce the star of the big budget TV ad.
And Vicki certainly became a star.
It helped that she really did care about AMP's clients. It also helped that Leos had her plus-sized frame in a bathing suit and cheery face in a frilly bathing cap. And of course the media spend was considerable.
One of the reasons the ad was so well remembered had to do with the context of the time. Banks had a lot of bad press for shutting down branches. The other insurance and funds management companies arguably lacked AMP's strong local representation of financial planners who were part of their towns and cities across the country.
People remembered the funny, warm smiling face of Vicki Williams because she was real. The genuine item. And it showed, even when she'd done that shot a million times.
Vicki gave out as many autographs as Olympians - she was LOVED. She may not have sold many policies or superanuation funds, but she was (briefly) adored by thousands.
Then there's "the AAMI girl" as she's known. I'm not sure if there's a picture in the attic of the woman in that long-running TV ad, or if they update her every 5 years. However she's probably been the best known and most liked face of general insurance in Australia for years.
The point?
People connect with people.
Especially when it comes to money (trust matters) and the really boring stuff they'd rather not have to think too much about.
Like insurance and super.
Ads used to be a good way to provide a human proxy for the personal touch.
As branches have closed down and technology has replaced people we've seen all sort of replacements for humans. Interactive voice systems, online banking, ATMs, online share trading.
We've also seen a far greater reliance on public relations or custom content to generate media coverage for financial services organisations. Both communication tools are far more credible ways to get people back in front of customers again, without the multi-million dollar spend or the big geographic footprint of a national staff.
So if you, just like many other financial services organisations with shrinking staff numbers who want to grow their retail presence, think about how you're going to get a credible, friendly and mass-produced human in front of the humans who matter most to your business.
Staff, customers, clients, channel partners, even business partners.
We're all looking for that person who really cares.
Does your brand have one?
Enter Vicki Williams, a customer service staff member from AMP in Perth. Vicki was the winner of competition conceived by the agency (Leo Burnett) and run among AMP staff to produce the star of the big budget TV ad.
And Vicki certainly became a star.
It helped that she really did care about AMP's clients. It also helped that Leos had her plus-sized frame in a bathing suit and cheery face in a frilly bathing cap. And of course the media spend was considerable.
One of the reasons the ad was so well remembered had to do with the context of the time. Banks had a lot of bad press for shutting down branches. The other insurance and funds management companies arguably lacked AMP's strong local representation of financial planners who were part of their towns and cities across the country.
People remembered the funny, warm smiling face of Vicki Williams because she was real. The genuine item. And it showed, even when she'd done that shot a million times.
Vicki gave out as many autographs as Olympians - she was LOVED. She may not have sold many policies or superanuation funds, but she was (briefly) adored by thousands.
Then there's "the AAMI girl" as she's known. I'm not sure if there's a picture in the attic of the woman in that long-running TV ad, or if they update her every 5 years. However she's probably been the best known and most liked face of general insurance in Australia for years.
The point?
People connect with people.
Especially when it comes to money (trust matters) and the really boring stuff they'd rather not have to think too much about.
Like insurance and super.
Ads used to be a good way to provide a human proxy for the personal touch.
As branches have closed down and technology has replaced people we've seen all sort of replacements for humans. Interactive voice systems, online banking, ATMs, online share trading.
We've also seen a far greater reliance on public relations or custom content to generate media coverage for financial services organisations. Both communication tools are far more credible ways to get people back in front of customers again, without the multi-million dollar spend or the big geographic footprint of a national staff.
So if you, just like many other financial services organisations with shrinking staff numbers who want to grow their retail presence, think about how you're going to get a credible, friendly and mass-produced human in front of the humans who matter most to your business.
Staff, customers, clients, channel partners, even business partners.
We're all looking for that person who really cares.
Does your brand have one?
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Audience analysis AKA who are these super fund members or investors anyway?
Real people. With stories that tell us far more about who they are as people than the figures in their statements or their age. The better we know these personal stories, the better our investment communication. And, I believe, the better the outcome for the investor.
Here are two very different investors facing a similar drop in their super balances...
Mary is a 65 year old professional who is a member of a not-for profit super fund. Mary planned to retire this year...until markets savaged her balanced portfolio. Despite the drop in value she's seen, she's actually pretty calm about it. She's saving more and planning to work part-time rather than retire. Mary trusts her planner, the fund and the advice she's been given and she's happy to sit tight until markets recover. Until then she'll keep working and focus more on her grandchildren than her travel plans.
Compare her with Peter, the 45 year old index fund member who avoided opening his statements for six months. Those statements sat in his home in tray under piles of other unopened mail (he's busy - he works in financial services!!!). When he did open his statements he discovered his high growth fund had been, well, smashed. And he got angry. Who with? Peter doesn't have a financial adviser. He choose the fund manager, the fund and the style of investing. But does he feel responsible for what markets have done to his retirement savings? Not exactly. He got angry with the fund manager. Furious. Wanted to switch to cash immediately to teach them a lesson. Which of course given the equities rally since January wouldn't really have penalised anyone except himself.
I recently had the honour of speaking to a group of super fund executives (Fund Executive Association members) around Australia about member communication. The presentation focussed on the usual - strategies, tactics and examples of superb investor communication both in Australia and overseas. We also talked as a group about those fund members and their stories...how understanding who these people are helps us as finance professionals deliver messages effectively.
The better these message are delivered the more able we are to serve investors best interests - to inform, to educate and to advise (where permitted).
So bring on the numerical, demographics, attitudinal and behavioural analysis that might help create viable investor segments for the purposes of communication...and in the meantime personify those people by taking the time to understand their stories.
Budget, time and technology are often against us when it comes to creating really useful (such as a combination of attitudinal and demographic info) segments of fund members.
A simple way to get an informal (and still useful) feel for who these people are and how to communicate effectively to them is simply to take calls or listen in to calls in the call centre...review recordings, read the FAQ. Switched on fund execs are taking any steps they can to get closer to investors in order to help them - with really good quality communication that enables members to make good decisions no matter how volatile markets are or how damaged their super may look.
Credit where it's due....There is this very talented communications professional I know (Andy Eklund) who collaborates with us on client projects, trains our clients in communication and trains our team of financial services communication consultants. He's far more informative than I will ever be on the subject of audience analysis.
This post about audience analysis is the first in a series of investor communication posts. Other topics will include how communication really does impact investor behaviour and how to create messages that work for investors. Post a comment to let me know of any other topics of interest, or to disagree with my posts!
Here are two very different investors facing a similar drop in their super balances...
Mary is a 65 year old professional who is a member of a not-for profit super fund. Mary planned to retire this year...until markets savaged her balanced portfolio. Despite the drop in value she's seen, she's actually pretty calm about it. She's saving more and planning to work part-time rather than retire. Mary trusts her planner, the fund and the advice she's been given and she's happy to sit tight until markets recover. Until then she'll keep working and focus more on her grandchildren than her travel plans.
Compare her with Peter, the 45 year old index fund member who avoided opening his statements for six months. Those statements sat in his home in tray under piles of other unopened mail (he's busy - he works in financial services!!!). When he did open his statements he discovered his high growth fund had been, well, smashed. And he got angry. Who with? Peter doesn't have a financial adviser. He choose the fund manager, the fund and the style of investing. But does he feel responsible for what markets have done to his retirement savings? Not exactly. He got angry with the fund manager. Furious. Wanted to switch to cash immediately to teach them a lesson. Which of course given the equities rally since January wouldn't really have penalised anyone except himself.
I recently had the honour of speaking to a group of super fund executives (Fund Executive Association members) around Australia about member communication. The presentation focussed on the usual - strategies, tactics and examples of superb investor communication both in Australia and overseas. We also talked as a group about those fund members and their stories...how understanding who these people are helps us as finance professionals deliver messages effectively.
The better these message are delivered the more able we are to serve investors best interests - to inform, to educate and to advise (where permitted).
So bring on the numerical, demographics, attitudinal and behavioural analysis that might help create viable investor segments for the purposes of communication...and in the meantime personify those people by taking the time to understand their stories.
Budget, time and technology are often against us when it comes to creating really useful (such as a combination of attitudinal and demographic info) segments of fund members.
A simple way to get an informal (and still useful) feel for who these people are and how to communicate effectively to them is simply to take calls or listen in to calls in the call centre...review recordings, read the FAQ. Switched on fund execs are taking any steps they can to get closer to investors in order to help them - with really good quality communication that enables members to make good decisions no matter how volatile markets are or how damaged their super may look.
Credit where it's due....There is this very talented communications professional I know (Andy Eklund) who collaborates with us on client projects, trains our clients in communication and trains our team of financial services communication consultants. He's far more informative than I will ever be on the subject of audience analysis.
This post about audience analysis is the first in a series of investor communication posts. Other topics will include how communication really does impact investor behaviour and how to create messages that work for investors. Post a comment to let me know of any other topics of interest, or to disagree with my posts!
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
What do you say to investors when their money has gone?
What on earth do you say to investors who are near retirement and find themselves with half their capital gone thanks to global market volatility? Or worse, poor investment choices?
Fund managers, financial planners and superannuation providers are answering these questions now, and will have to keep answering them in the future.
There's no easy answer. There's no doubling the lost dollars to magically take investors back to where they were.
So how about a simple but challenging answer?
Markets go up and down. When and how they will do that is something you, I, and most professional investors, cannot pick. So invest now for the long term with full knowledge of the short term risk you run. Think very carefully about what you are prepared to lose, or what you can do without for a very long time - perhaps ten years.
And understand a little about investor behaviour - how you might react when it gets scary. We typically buy and sell at the 'wrong' times because we panic - even though we know this basic info about markets.
Forewarned is surely better prepared...although it might be a while before some of us get to use that knowledge.
It's what those with a long term focus have been saying for as long as I can remember funds management marketing...which is since the early 90s.
It's not new. It's not sexy. It's not different to your competitors. But it appears to have been proven right - again.
What can be new, different and if not sexy at least real, is HOW you say that now.
The "how now" is all about humility, understanding and realism. Doing that well takes a good understanding of your audience - the real people you are talking to.
Communicating well now also takes a long term commitment - which comes from deep inside your organisation - because as a company you believe an informed investor is better off as well as being a better client.
Fund managers, financial planners and superannuation providers are answering these questions now, and will have to keep answering them in the future.
There's no easy answer. There's no doubling the lost dollars to magically take investors back to where they were.
So how about a simple but challenging answer?
Markets go up and down. When and how they will do that is something you, I, and most professional investors, cannot pick. So invest now for the long term with full knowledge of the short term risk you run. Think very carefully about what you are prepared to lose, or what you can do without for a very long time - perhaps ten years.
And understand a little about investor behaviour - how you might react when it gets scary. We typically buy and sell at the 'wrong' times because we panic - even though we know this basic info about markets.
Forewarned is surely better prepared...although it might be a while before some of us get to use that knowledge.
It's what those with a long term focus have been saying for as long as I can remember funds management marketing...which is since the early 90s.
It's not new. It's not sexy. It's not different to your competitors. But it appears to have been proven right - again.
What can be new, different and if not sexy at least real, is HOW you say that now.
The "how now" is all about humility, understanding and realism. Doing that well takes a good understanding of your audience - the real people you are talking to.
Communicating well now also takes a long term commitment - which comes from deep inside your organisation - because as a company you believe an informed investor is better off as well as being a better client.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Ethics in PR (now stop laughing!)
Today the Public Relations Institute of Australia sent out a link to the PRTV edition about ethics.
It's easy to laugh when the concepts are linked - "PR" and 'ethics'.
My second, more sombre reaction (as when interviewed) is that ethical behaviour by PR people is impossible if they don't really know what they're communicating about.
How do I know? Let's call it bitter experience...stories for another time.
The short version is that as so-called professional communicators we have zero credibility if we don't really know what we're talking about, trust the people we work for and ultimately, take extreme care in how we present facts AND nuance.
Yes, we should follow a code of ethics.
Yes, we should "do the right thing", meaning be honest and truthful.
More than those things we should question whether or not what we're asked is right.
And ultimately satisfy ourselves with an answer we can live with.
I certainly can't claim the moral high ground - as a younger PR I sometimes felt very uncomfortable with the "party line". It's career threatening to say "Excuse me Chairman, are you entirely sure we should present things as you've just described?".
More recently we've walked away from several potentially great (exciting, newsworthy) jobs when we felt unsure of the merits of our client's story, or just had a feeling that 'something wasn't right'.
This is not an argument that PRs need forensic accounting skills. However it is reasonable to expect that senior people in our profession can read both people and data, pay attention to the P&L and do a little due diligence on potential clients and employers.
Long term, if we believe our own mantra, our personal reputation is our most valuable asset.
Perhaps in PR the universal ethical guideline is simply enlightened self-interest.
It's easy to laugh when the concepts are linked - "PR" and 'ethics'.
My second, more sombre reaction (as when interviewed) is that ethical behaviour by PR people is impossible if they don't really know what they're communicating about.
How do I know? Let's call it bitter experience...stories for another time.
The short version is that as so-called professional communicators we have zero credibility if we don't really know what we're talking about, trust the people we work for and ultimately, take extreme care in how we present facts AND nuance.
Yes, we should follow a code of ethics.
Yes, we should "do the right thing", meaning be honest and truthful.
More than those things we should question whether or not what we're asked is right.
And ultimately satisfy ourselves with an answer we can live with.
I certainly can't claim the moral high ground - as a younger PR I sometimes felt very uncomfortable with the "party line". It's career threatening to say "Excuse me Chairman, are you entirely sure we should present things as you've just described?".
More recently we've walked away from several potentially great (exciting, newsworthy) jobs when we felt unsure of the merits of our client's story, or just had a feeling that 'something wasn't right'.
This is not an argument that PRs need forensic accounting skills. However it is reasonable to expect that senior people in our profession can read both people and data, pay attention to the P&L and do a little due diligence on potential clients and employers.
Long term, if we believe our own mantra, our personal reputation is our most valuable asset.
Perhaps in PR the universal ethical guideline is simply enlightened self-interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)