ASR - the Emperor's new clothes?
If you're a capable PR person short on a laugh, read this article on mumbrella. Media Monitors have just launched a new measure of PR effectiveness. It's based, to the horror of some, on advertising value.
Note it's NOT called AVE - advertising value equivalent. It's called ASR - advertising space rates.
After I stopped laughing at the spin I had to admire what they've done.
PR professionals may not like it but if I were betting I'd say it will be a winner. Here's why.
PR measurement is, to say the least, somewhat vexed as a subject.
The summary sometimes sounds like is this: to AVE (advertising value equivalent) or not?
The longer version includes a whole bunch of conversations about support from stakeholders, building reputation and some other stuff.
To the CEO that can sound like "blah blah blah...really, PR matters...blah blah blah". Often what the C-suite will judge PR success or failure on is the credibility of the people doing it and whether or not their peers are mentioning their media coverage.
Of course that's an exaggeration but it does bring us to the ugly subject of how should we really measure public relations success - and how Media Monitors are proposing to.
Now I am well aware that the Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA) prohibits using AVE as a measure.
As the MD of a PR firm where excellence and integrity are core values, I've stuck by that code of ethics. We defend, and use, other forms of measurement.
BUT, and it's a big but, I do have some very positive experiences of working in a very large listed Australian entity and using AVE to superb effect.
How so? It's simple. A large number gets a large amount of attention. It focuses senior executives on the value of the reputation building work done by the media team, and it gives the team a benchmark.
Not a value - simply a benchmark.
So, like playing poker with matchsticks, the currency is somewhat meaningless.
What is meaningful is a single number that is:
- measured in a consistent manner
- objectively assessed and
- provides the C-suite (and the media team) with a simple way to measure PR effectiveness.
Of course until the PRIA allows some form of dollar measurement, we most likely won't use it.
We''ll keep measuring, for example, impressions. And hoping the debate moves on, towards a single, industry-wide agreed metric.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Strengths - and why they matter in your communication
Fresh from a recent Strengths workshop with Marcus Buckingham I'm looking at the world slightly differently.
Marcus Buckingham's book "Go put your strengths to work" and one of his recent Sydney seminars was all about how playing to our strengths at work makes us happier and more productive.
And who among us doesn't want that??
This evening I tore the little cards out of the back of Buckingham's book, and started to obediently document when I'd recently "felt strong" (at home, kneading bread...at work, meeting an interesting CEO for the first time) and "felt weak" (at home, washing up...at work, in a very routine meeting).
The exercise bears a startling resemblance to the planning methodology we use with clients.
Invariably we look for both organisational strengths and weaknesses. Strategies, messaging and actions plans are most usually based around the company's areas of relative advantage - in Buckinham's world that equates to strengths.
Risk management, and what we might call "preventative" messaging or actions, come from real or potential areas of weakness.
How much time do we focus on strengths versus weaknesses in a client's PR program? About 90% on strengths and about 10% on weaknesses - unless we're engaged on issues or crisis management.
While there are no little coloured cards we fill out for a client, we usually do overtly partner with clients via a planning process or during an engagement to uncover, articulate and promote areas of relative strength - often these are sources of sustainable competitive advantage as well as key levers in a communication program.
Other times the organisational strengths we uncover with clients might be defined entirely by current news or a particular context. For example in internal communication a strength that you want to dial up may well be defined by the culture or current internal climate, as well as the relative allure of other employers and status of the job market.
Buckingham's work makes a strong case for organising our jobs, no matter at what level, around our strengths, rather than around minimising our weaknesses.
I'd suggest, very simply, the same works in public relations. If firms have their value proposition right (for clients, employees or investors) then communicationg strengths allows stakeholders to find themselves a good match - the service or product provider, employer or investment that best meets their particular needs. The organisation that gives them something they need, and value.
Just as playing to our strengths, and helping others play to theirs, enables diverse work mates to co-exist. When we get it right, as teams or service providers, there's a nice symbiosis between one person's weaknesses and the next's strengths.
With that in mind I'm going to check on the bread...I "felt strong" kneading the dough but it might take a better baker than I am to achieve a good loaf.
To skip from the personal to the professional, and in particular the practice of public relations, good communication helps us find that work team, client or service provider who "completes" us.
Marcus Buckingham's book "Go put your strengths to work" and one of his recent Sydney seminars was all about how playing to our strengths at work makes us happier and more productive.
And who among us doesn't want that??
This evening I tore the little cards out of the back of Buckingham's book, and started to obediently document when I'd recently "felt strong" (at home, kneading bread...at work, meeting an interesting CEO for the first time) and "felt weak" (at home, washing up...at work, in a very routine meeting).
The exercise bears a startling resemblance to the planning methodology we use with clients.
Invariably we look for both organisational strengths and weaknesses. Strategies, messaging and actions plans are most usually based around the company's areas of relative advantage - in Buckinham's world that equates to strengths.
Risk management, and what we might call "preventative" messaging or actions, come from real or potential areas of weakness.
How much time do we focus on strengths versus weaknesses in a client's PR program? About 90% on strengths and about 10% on weaknesses - unless we're engaged on issues or crisis management.
While there are no little coloured cards we fill out for a client, we usually do overtly partner with clients via a planning process or during an engagement to uncover, articulate and promote areas of relative strength - often these are sources of sustainable competitive advantage as well as key levers in a communication program.
Other times the organisational strengths we uncover with clients might be defined entirely by current news or a particular context. For example in internal communication a strength that you want to dial up may well be defined by the culture or current internal climate, as well as the relative allure of other employers and status of the job market.
Buckingham's work makes a strong case for organising our jobs, no matter at what level, around our strengths, rather than around minimising our weaknesses.
I'd suggest, very simply, the same works in public relations. If firms have their value proposition right (for clients, employees or investors) then communicationg strengths allows stakeholders to find themselves a good match - the service or product provider, employer or investment that best meets their particular needs. The organisation that gives them something they need, and value.
Just as playing to our strengths, and helping others play to theirs, enables diverse work mates to co-exist. When we get it right, as teams or service providers, there's a nice symbiosis between one person's weaknesses and the next's strengths.
With that in mind I'm going to check on the bread...I "felt strong" kneading the dough but it might take a better baker than I am to achieve a good loaf.
To skip from the personal to the professional, and in particular the practice of public relations, good communication helps us find that work team, client or service provider who "completes" us.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Top 3 things you should know about your PR firm...
What people say about PR firms...
Catching up with some C-suite colleagues today I heard some recurring themes about PR firms.
Sadly for the PR profession they were not particularly flattering.
"They're just not that smart"
"They don't get the business"
"Appalling to deal with"
"Would never hire them"
You get the general picture. While it's tempting to defend the good work done by many great PR people, I thought it might be more constructive, from inside a consultancy, to offer some ideas about how to sort the truly terrible firms from the potentially great ones.
Top 3 things to ask your PR firm
Here are things I'd now want to know about my PR firm if I was in house, hiring a consultant again. These are not, in my experience, the usual pitch-type questions you probably already know, and ask.
1. Do you have any client satisfaction data you can share with us?
Yes, you and everyone else can show us great results....but how good are you at managing the relationship? Do you have proof that you do it well across all clients? Actual numbers or client survey data?
2. What do journalists say about you? Can we talk to them?
As revealing as media feedback might be, the list of journos NOT offered, especially in a small industry trade media circle, may be as revealing as the names of those who are offered as potential referees.
3. How do you manage your team?
PR firms, like other consultancies, can be demanding (and rewarding) places to work. Ideally your chosen partner gives a lot of thought and resources to developing and looking after the people who will work with you. Their happiness, and how well they are supported, will have a big impact on your results.
These are just three of many possible questions. My team, reading this, will most likely have even better questions - some of which would be way more searching than my suggestions.
Aiming for excellence
Our team shares a value of excellence - in our world that doesn't mean just hitting a certain standard - it also means continually lifting the bar to deliver ever better results or improve how we work.
Asking ourselves the hard questions is one way of continuing to improve - what we do, and how.
I'd be interested to hear other ideas...
Catching up with some C-suite colleagues today I heard some recurring themes about PR firms.
Sadly for the PR profession they were not particularly flattering.
"They're just not that smart"
"They don't get the business"
"Appalling to deal with"
"Would never hire them"
You get the general picture. While it's tempting to defend the good work done by many great PR people, I thought it might be more constructive, from inside a consultancy, to offer some ideas about how to sort the truly terrible firms from the potentially great ones.
Top 3 things to ask your PR firm
Here are things I'd now want to know about my PR firm if I was in house, hiring a consultant again. These are not, in my experience, the usual pitch-type questions you probably already know, and ask.
1. Do you have any client satisfaction data you can share with us?
Yes, you and everyone else can show us great results....but how good are you at managing the relationship? Do you have proof that you do it well across all clients? Actual numbers or client survey data?
2. What do journalists say about you? Can we talk to them?
As revealing as media feedback might be, the list of journos NOT offered, especially in a small industry trade media circle, may be as revealing as the names of those who are offered as potential referees.
3. How do you manage your team?
PR firms, like other consultancies, can be demanding (and rewarding) places to work. Ideally your chosen partner gives a lot of thought and resources to developing and looking after the people who will work with you. Their happiness, and how well they are supported, will have a big impact on your results.
These are just three of many possible questions. My team, reading this, will most likely have even better questions - some of which would be way more searching than my suggestions.
Aiming for excellence
Our team shares a value of excellence - in our world that doesn't mean just hitting a certain standard - it also means continually lifting the bar to deliver ever better results or improve how we work.
Asking ourselves the hard questions is one way of continuing to improve - what we do, and how.
I'd be interested to hear other ideas...
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
R.E.S.P.E.C.T...what it means to me
R.E.S.P.E.C.T…what it means to me
To paraphrase Aretha, my team has a very particular meaning for the word respect. Several meanings in fact.
First, “respect” (in our business) means seeking first to understand, before seeking to be understood.
Often, that simply means listening. It also means asking questions, before jumping in with solutions.
It’s not something that came naturally to me when I started as a consultant in 2003. In fact, I was pretty confident that whatever the problem was, I had a solution, and sometimes before my client had finished their sentence. Funnily enough, seven years later, with way more consulting experience I am often less sure of the communication solution. Ad I spend way less time talking.
My listening skills, however, have improved remarkably with practice.
And thus the solutions I recommend are enriched by a far deeper understanding of what’s really going on for our clients’ businesses – whether that be with respect to their clients, colleagues, investors, media or industry gatekeepers.
In practice as communication consultants that means seeking to understand not only our clients but also our clients’ audiences. And we encourage our clients to also think deeply about what exactly is going in for those audiences before any of us start trying to talk to them. We talk about “getting inside their skin”.
Data helps but personal experience is essential.
The most sophisticated market research is no match for a frank conversation about what really matters to individual clients.
I’ve recently had some experiences with consultants that caused me to reflect on the whole notion of listening. These consultants have plenty of things to tell me. Some of the wisdom they offer is confronting, some exciting, and almost all they have to say is useful.
But whether or not I use what they have to say has everything to do with whether I feel listened to or not.
In one case, I felt listened to… right up until the point a young guy who hasn’t run his own business or been a communication consultant started to tell me (with absolute certainty) how I should spend my time, and what BlueChip Communication should be doing about strategy, pricing and a few other bits and pieces.
In another case, I’ve had some very constructive conversations with a wiser and more experienced consultant. That person took the time to do their research, get to know more than the superficial facts, and only then engage in a conversation…or at least that’s what it felt like even though it was advice. I felt listened to.
Which brings me back to respect.
If, as consultants, we listen well enough, we should be able to pick up the verbal and non-verbal cues from clients. It’s not our job to tell clients what they want to hear. But it is our job to find a way to tell them what (in our best judgment) we think they need to hear.
So in seeking first to understand (to listen well) we can then be of most use to our valued clients.
It’s basic but even the big firms don’t necessarily have it right.
With that, I’m off to continue practicing my listening skills.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Breakfast with the Prime Minister today
Squeezed tightly between two clients I listened intently to Kevin Rudd talk this morning.
I say "squeezed tightly" because the sold-out event drew the financial services industry in force to the Shangri-La ballroom in Sydney to hear Chris Bowen, Minister for Financial Services, Craig Dunne, AMP CEO, John Brogden IFSA CEO and the Prime Minster.
Chris Bowen told a great story about a Prime Minister who began a national savings system yet left the office before he could complete the vision. He went on, of course, to say that last weekend another Labor Prime Minster finished the job by announcing the phase in of a 12% Superannuation Guarantee Charge.
The Prime Minster positioned super as a buffer that helped Australia avoid the worst of the global economic slowdown, and as one of our greatest national strengths - contributing both to the nation's economy and the security of Australian families.
Certainly there wasn't a lot of talk about banks today - as the PM went on to say super gave depth to domestic investment markets, diversification in the financial system and provided a source of capital for business.
What he didn't say was that all the talk about retail term deposits being granted concessional tax status, of say 15%, came to nothing. There was a firm view, pre-Henry announcement, that we would see a product created that enjoyed the same tax benefits as super and also provided a ready pool of onshore bank funding.
The Prime Minster also talked about Australia in 2009 and painted a picture of a nation that, in 2009, remained an attractive source of capital globally, with a strong financial sector making up the single largest sector of our economy.
Australians' expertise in funds management, risk analysis and financial markets, he argued, should encourage us to take what we have learned here and apply it in the region to make Australia (and Sydney) a regional hub for financial markets.
Continuing challenges for super? Adequacy, fairness and efficiency.
So what of the future for super?
Many in the industry have called for regulatory certainty around super in order to give investors full confidence in the system - and the impetus to invest more with certainty.
Short term, it sounds as though the Government plan is to let the dust will settle.
I'm sure I heard an assurance there would be no more changes to super in next week's Federal Budget.
Longer term the promise is for "a fair system" that is "simpler and more efficient".
And I'll still be interested to see if that much-written about long term deposit product appears on Tuesday night in the Treasurer's speech.
I say "squeezed tightly" because the sold-out event drew the financial services industry in force to the Shangri-La ballroom in Sydney to hear Chris Bowen, Minister for Financial Services, Craig Dunne, AMP CEO, John Brogden IFSA CEO and the Prime Minster.
Chris Bowen told a great story about a Prime Minister who began a national savings system yet left the office before he could complete the vision. He went on, of course, to say that last weekend another Labor Prime Minster finished the job by announcing the phase in of a 12% Superannuation Guarantee Charge.
The Prime Minster positioned super as a buffer that helped Australia avoid the worst of the global economic slowdown, and as one of our greatest national strengths - contributing both to the nation's economy and the security of Australian families.
Certainly there wasn't a lot of talk about banks today - as the PM went on to say super gave depth to domestic investment markets, diversification in the financial system and provided a source of capital for business.
What he didn't say was that all the talk about retail term deposits being granted concessional tax status, of say 15%, came to nothing. There was a firm view, pre-Henry announcement, that we would see a product created that enjoyed the same tax benefits as super and also provided a ready pool of onshore bank funding.
The Prime Minster also talked about Australia in 2009 and painted a picture of a nation that, in 2009, remained an attractive source of capital globally, with a strong financial sector making up the single largest sector of our economy.
Australians' expertise in funds management, risk analysis and financial markets, he argued, should encourage us to take what we have learned here and apply it in the region to make Australia (and Sydney) a regional hub for financial markets.
Continuing challenges for super? Adequacy, fairness and efficiency.
So what of the future for super?
Many in the industry have called for regulatory certainty around super in order to give investors full confidence in the system - and the impetus to invest more with certainty.
Short term, it sounds as though the Government plan is to let the dust will settle.
I'm sure I heard an assurance there would be no more changes to super in next week's Federal Budget.
Longer term the promise is for "a fair system" that is "simpler and more efficient".
And I'll still be interested to see if that much-written about long term deposit product appears on Tuesday night in the Treasurer's speech.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Fear versus cautious confidence - how context changes everything
As 2010 proceeds at a cracker pace it's interesting to reflect on the difference a year makes. The context (although not all the content) is completely different.
In financial services public relations, marketing and communication the game has changed - along with the context.
Last year the context was fear. This year it's cautious confidence. One can be paralysing, the other galvanising.
As professional communicators we hold true that "context" is everything
The same statement can mean opposite things depending purely on context. Context (in our world) includes how the audiences is thinking & feeling and what they already believe. It includes, in financial services, what markets and economies are doing, and what we hear respected colleagues say about their business and their expectations for the future.
Last year the context was like a dark blanket thrown over us all - with a few weak pinpricks of light shining through.
Late in 2008 and throughout 2009 I talked with many of you about fear.
Even naming it felt brave.
We all felt it, but (almost to a person) no one wanted to say it out loud. And yet when we finally talked about it, senior executives were palpably relieved that the real context had been named...and we could get on with business...with the emotion out of the way.
Once named, fear lost some of its power
Once explored, we could use our understanding of that context to work out how to communicate properly -to industry colleagues, consumers, media, government and our own people.
The context (in this case a strong shared emotion) was only a problem when it wasn't acknowledged and planned for.
This year's context is completely different
Fear is taking a back seat to cautious confidence. To generalise about what we've seen in 2010 (okay it won't reflect everyone's experience!) in financial services communication:
1. Decisions are being made - both off the back of a long process (delayed from 2009)
2. Aggressive growth plans in are play again - supported by a greater focus on acquisitory (as opposed to retention) marketing
3. Money is moving in retail and wholesale (and the moves have to be explained)
4. Retention is still a focus - although on an industry basis the quality of client communication is highly variable
5. Internal communication is rising in importance - to help keep valued people and to ensure they know how (and want to) execute on strategy.
Markets are up, bonuses may be back and portfolios look vastly improved.
Cautious confidence
Cautious confidence seems the right description for what we seeing though retail investor research and hearing in institutional funds management. It also describes the vibe we hear from consumer financial companies through to industry participants dealing only with others in financial services.
And fear?
As for fear, well it's not left us completely. It's just sitting in the back seat.
With cautious confidence as the context, our messages, tone of voice and methods of public relations and communication have subtly changed.
Action
The bias to act (rather than hold on) is back.
Communication is now less reactive to world economic events and more proactive.
Forwards, with purpose. But ever so carefully.
In financial services public relations, marketing and communication the game has changed - along with the context.
Last year the context was fear. This year it's cautious confidence. One can be paralysing, the other galvanising.
As professional communicators we hold true that "context" is everything
The same statement can mean opposite things depending purely on context. Context (in our world) includes how the audiences is thinking & feeling and what they already believe. It includes, in financial services, what markets and economies are doing, and what we hear respected colleagues say about their business and their expectations for the future.
Last year the context was like a dark blanket thrown over us all - with a few weak pinpricks of light shining through.
Late in 2008 and throughout 2009 I talked with many of you about fear.
Even naming it felt brave.
We all felt it, but (almost to a person) no one wanted to say it out loud. And yet when we finally talked about it, senior executives were palpably relieved that the real context had been named...and we could get on with business...with the emotion out of the way.
Once named, fear lost some of its power
Once explored, we could use our understanding of that context to work out how to communicate properly -to industry colleagues, consumers, media, government and our own people.
The context (in this case a strong shared emotion) was only a problem when it wasn't acknowledged and planned for.
This year's context is completely different
Fear is taking a back seat to cautious confidence. To generalise about what we've seen in 2010 (okay it won't reflect everyone's experience!) in financial services communication:
1. Decisions are being made - both off the back of a long process (delayed from 2009)
2. Aggressive growth plans in are play again - supported by a greater focus on acquisitory (as opposed to retention) marketing
3. Money is moving in retail and wholesale (and the moves have to be explained)
4. Retention is still a focus - although on an industry basis the quality of client communication is highly variable
5. Internal communication is rising in importance - to help keep valued people and to ensure they know how (and want to) execute on strategy.
Markets are up, bonuses may be back and portfolios look vastly improved.
Cautious confidence
Cautious confidence seems the right description for what we seeing though retail investor research and hearing in institutional funds management. It also describes the vibe we hear from consumer financial companies through to industry participants dealing only with others in financial services.
And fear?
As for fear, well it's not left us completely. It's just sitting in the back seat.
With cautious confidence as the context, our messages, tone of voice and methods of public relations and communication have subtly changed.
Action
The bias to act (rather than hold on) is back.
Communication is now less reactive to world economic events and more proactive.
Forwards, with purpose. But ever so carefully.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
2010 - the year of video & online PR
As we all know predictions are a dangerous game. Particularly when it comes to social media.
Last year and my colleagues and I listened to people who know better than us, we heard some interesting things.
This included:
1. The mobile device is set to soar thanks to iPhone
2. Video popularity and accessibility would follow as bandwidth and download speeds improved (particularly on mobile phones)
3. Social media and content marketing really do matter in financial services - both retail and institutional.
And here we are, barely into 2010 (January often doesn't count in Australia), yet flooded with requests for help with, guess what? Video. Online PR strategy and campaigns. Content. And a serve of social media monitoring on the side please.
The parts of financial services looking at social media is interesting - and completely diverse. We expected large consumer brands to lead whereas we've now seen everyone from industry institutional asset managers to retail direct players take up online PR or more social-media-friendly forms of online communication and engagement .
When my favourite monolithic bank added an iPhone app to their existing mobile banking platform on the holidays I was a little surprised and delighted. Yes, the functionality is rubbish but it does look good. I'm sure version 1.1 is just around the corner.
Apparently the predictions were right. Of course it's early days so it will be interesting to see if the increased investment in interactive communication and online PR holds until the next holiday season.
We suspect it will.
Last year and my colleagues and I listened to people who know better than us, we heard some interesting things.
This included:
1. The mobile device is set to soar thanks to iPhone
2. Video popularity and accessibility would follow as bandwidth and download speeds improved (particularly on mobile phones)
3. Social media and content marketing really do matter in financial services - both retail and institutional.
And here we are, barely into 2010 (January often doesn't count in Australia), yet flooded with requests for help with, guess what? Video. Online PR strategy and campaigns. Content. And a serve of social media monitoring on the side please.
The parts of financial services looking at social media is interesting - and completely diverse. We expected large consumer brands to lead whereas we've now seen everyone from industry institutional asset managers to retail direct players take up online PR or more social-media-friendly forms of online communication and engagement .
When my favourite monolithic bank added an iPhone app to their existing mobile banking platform on the holidays I was a little surprised and delighted. Yes, the functionality is rubbish but it does look good. I'm sure version 1.1 is just around the corner.
Apparently the predictions were right. Of course it's early days so it will be interesting to see if the increased investment in interactive communication and online PR holds until the next holiday season.
We suspect it will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)