Getting above it: why a non-PR perspective makes for better PR

Last Friday I caught up with a very clever colleague (Paul) who also runs his own successful professional services business.

Let me be very clear. He's not a PR person. But he and his team do advise many leader in financial services on communication. And as he and I agree, there's a lot to be desired about the standard of public relations - whether in Australia or the world, and both inside and beyond financial services

How does a non-PR person end up giving advice to financial services leaders on communication? Pretty simple - they "get" strategy. And PR folk often don't. Sure they (or should I say "we"?) think they do. But fundamentally, and if you ask a CEO, they don't.

The non-PR perspective in PR seems to be the x factor that elevates communication people beyond being PR people to being a valued part of the management team. 

It's the ability to see beyond the communication that makes communication advice truly useful to leaders in business, in government and the not-for-profit sector. That's simply the ability to "get above" the PR and communication agenda to see the broader business context...and thus offer more meaningful input to content.

I have a personal experience around this that illustrates the point. Years ago, as a fearless sub-30 year old, I thought I was pretty good at "getting" strategy in financial services (thanks to the management degree I had rather than the communication honours degree I couldn't be bothered finishing).

Now, as a business owner, and with experience at creating and executing on strategy to create a culture, deliver services and achieve targets, I'm a much better communicator. Because I "get" strategy in a much deeper way. I've created a business in financial services communication from scratch, set it's strategy, then trialled and refined approaches until we got it right.

I, like Paul, advise finance clients on things way beyond the "communication" or "PR" brief. And our communication and PR advice and execution is much the better for it.

So what can PR people do to "get above it" and improve their ability to advise on  the problems and how do we fix them?

Education: Ideally something other than pure communication...commerce, business, management, philosophy, law, economics, marketing and journalism are some of the qualification in our team. I'm not a massive fan of arts degrees as an employer, for similar reasons to my somewhat anti-PR views....narrowness of perspective being my chief concern. A post-graduate or masters degree is a pretty attractive addition - especially in finance, business or management. The smart move is often simply a post graduate diploma in applied finance. And that's not as hard as it sounds. Yes, you'll need a calculator and some maths ability, but a lot of it is conceptual rather than applied maths per se.

Experience: Ok so what if you have an arts, communication or PR degree? A bit of commercial experience in a line management role might be a good idea. Any role that helps comms people get a more informed perspective on the commercial reality of business will give them a way better ability to advise on communication. That means backing yourself - having the confidence to work your way out of the communication box even if it's only a secondment.

Expectations: In some ways leaders, senior executives and PR firms get the PR capability they deserve. If their expectations of their PR and communication people is to receive only tactical communication advice then that's exactly what they'll get. On the other hand, if they make the effort to ask for more from their advisers, or to seek out those who can "get above it", then they'll lift the standard of PR across the board - and the business will benefit.

If we lift our gaze, our own careers and the organisations we work in, will be much the better for it.

Stakeholder engagement: why it’s important

Among the many (often conveniently nebulous) buzzwords we come across in our daily corporate lives is “stakeholder engagement”. Everybody wants it. It’s certainly a topline favourite in any communications, PR or marketing plan.

It’s also an essential requirement for any organisation aiming to build sustainability.

As Dr Leeora Black, from the Australian Centre of Corporate Social Responsibility (ACCSR), explained in an excellent master class she delivered at last week’s Australian Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Conference, a stakeholder is any individual or organisation which can affect, or be affected by, your organisation’s activities.

To achieve most major organisational goals, be it sustainability or anything else, you need your stakeholders on board: understanding where you’re going, seeing the point of it all (what’s in it for them? Or others? Or both?) and knowing what (if any) their role is in getting there. In other words, you need your stakeholders engaged.

That doesn’t mean they have to think you’re right. But it does mean having them aligned and supportive of the journey.

Why? Because the reality is that many of the issues business and other organisations are facing are simply too large, too complex, with too many interdependencies to be managed alone. 

So, where to start?

First, look at the issue: who it affects and how, the desired solution and what’s involved in developing and delivering it. Because some problems can be resolved without engaging stakeholders. Don’t waste time and effort by defaulting to seeking buy-in and input from the world if it’s not necessary.

If that’s not the case – and sometimes it isn’t – then move to step two: identifying your stakeholders. Sounds obvious, right?  But stakeholders can be hidden. Are there activities your organisation undertakes that affect others in ways you’re not aware of? Ask: who else shares your interest in the issue? You may be surprised.

Conversely, are there groups which may have been considered “stakeholders” who, on closer examination, are not? Sometimes, empty vessels do make the most noise.

Next step is to prioritise those stakeholders. For our purposes – that is, to effect change or manage an issue – that’s not just about identifying who is most affected. Those most affected may be passive or already well aligned with your direction.

Prioritising stakeholders is also very much about identifying which groups are the most organised and united around the issue, and which have the closest relationships with other interested parties. They are the ones most likely to be able to influence outcomes – one way or the other.

And if it’s going to be your way, your next move is using effective stakeholder communication to promote collaboration, build relationships and find the common ground you need to achieve your goals. Which is a story for another day.


Guest post from Kaitlin Walsh, Director of Media & Content at BlueChip Communication

PR - catalyst for CSR or defender of the indefensible?

As public relations advisers we can be a powerful catalyst for change inside business - whether from within or outside - as influencers of leadership. 


Or we can accept the status quo - and end up defending it after it's use by date.


Some PR leaders achieve great change by sensitising their colleagues on the leadership team to the need for change. By actively seeking and sharing signals from the external environment about trends, community standards, and potential issues or opportunities. And then setting out a path that will see their business or client deliver both commercial and social dividends - real shared value as defined by Michael Porter and others. 


Socially responsible business is now about creating shared value. The PR profession can, and should, be leaders of that agenda as they proactively seek information and insights to feed into strategy, decision and management action.


After more than 20 years in profession I'm a great believer that (it's not original) the best PR people transcend our profession. They're smart, commercial and highly aware of what's going on inside and outside their organisations. And they almost always have a broader education, career or expertise than "public relations". It's that last bit, I believe, that makes them truly great.

Other PR people simply defend the indefensible. They don't question, they don't challenge, they simply "do". It's a path that leads to (at best) missed opportunity or (at worst) mis-selling.

In financial services the quality of the leadership in PR matters immensely. Why?


In the words of an industry stalwart we're selling "promises and pieces of paper". These days we're selling promises and online communication. The role of the communicators is to make sure what we sell is in fact responsibly represented. Not mis-represented or mis-sold. 


Surely the single most important socially responsible action we can take as communicators in financial services is this:


"Help people make better decisions about their financial futures."

And, in line with that:


"Help business make better decisions in light of the internal and external environment"

My colleague Kaitlin Walsh blogged and tweeted from the first Asia Pacific regional GRI conference this week and posted this blog. In it she said 


"At its heart, the sustainability story is about making sure your business or organisation is here for the long haul. That it’s prepared not only to survive but to flourish in the face of the constant and unrelenting change that characterises our living and working environments. That it follows practices that are likely to cement its position as a stayer, and not put it – and more importantly the many who rely on it both directly and indirectly – at risk. (Consider here the mammoth impact of the conduct of financial services organisations concerned with stewarding our retirement incomes …)"


So my recommendation to you as a PR person is this: make your choice. 


Choose either to lead - to be part of the catalytic mechanism that sees our organisations increasingly deliver shared value - or resign yourself to defending the indefensible. 


Maybe not now, but at some stage in the future if you didn't stand for the change that's needed it's guaranteed you'll find yourself defending something not worth saving.


Harsh words? Maybe. Or perhaps just what my colleagues and management writer Patrick Lencioni would call "the kind truth". 

The real sustainability story - why you should bother

Just walked away from The Australian GlobalReporting Initiative (GRI) Conference on Sustainability and Integrated Reporting, a three-day event held at Melbourne’s Exhibition Centre.

As the first-ever GRI sustainability event held in this region it was, as you’d expect well attended (and sponsored!) by some of the luminaries of the corporate world: the big miners, big banks, big consulting firms, big supermarkets and, hearteningly, our own big Aussie government (Bernie Ripoll made an appearance at the opening plenary session).

In a jam-packed program that offered great insight and value, a number of fundamental issues emerged. Of special interest to me were the barriers and challenges we face in communicating the importance of sustainability and why we should all take heed.

Just one of those issues is that there’s no real common or widespread understanding of what the whole concept of “sustainability” really means.

Very hard to get your investors, customers, board, and other major stakeholders on board for sustainability when they don’t even know what it is – or why it matters.

So here’s what sustainability doesn’t mean.

Sustainability is not just about the environment. It’s not just about resource use. It’s not just about emissions or recycling or following safe, humane work practices. Sure, it’s about all of the above – but these are just a host of factors that go to the heart of the sustainability story.

At its heart, the sustainability story is about making sure your business or organisation is here for the long haul. That it’s prepared not only to survive but to flourish in the face of the constant and unrelenting change that characterises our living and working environments. That it follows practices that are likely to cement its position as a stayer, and not put it – and more importantly the many who rely on it both directly and indirectly – at risk. (Consider here the mammoth impact of the conduct of financial services organisations concerned with stewarding our retirement incomes …)

Too airy fairy for you? Then consider these examples.

The Narrabri farmer attending the conference to learn more about how to address the potential impacts of coal seam gas mining on his own livelihood and that of his agricultural peers. Because he wants to be here for the long term – way beyond his own generation.

The NZ Post representative there to gain insights into how his organisation, facing the real potential of technologically-induced obsolescence. Because he wants the business to survive, thrive and continue to meet its vital social charter well into the future.

The major media outlet representative there to look at the benefits of placing sustainability on the directors’ agenda at a time when, as we all know, the long term outlook for conventional media businesses is dire. And viable alternatives won’t pose themselves.

These three cases alone speak volumes for the broad ambit of the real sustainability story, in which all the imperatives of survival and success are inextricably linked. The story in which we need to take action now to build a positive future – way beyond our own generation. Because the future sure won’t take care of itself.

Guest post from Kaitlin Walsh, Director of Media & Content at BlueChip Communication

What the "s" in social media really stands for

“Superfluous,” some argued just three years ago when we presented our first social media seminar to clients and colleagues. Some sceptics argued that Facebook, Twitter and even LinkedIn would never gain critical mass when it came to communication with investors, advisers or asset consultants.

“Scary,” and an unnecessary open door to public criticism, others said.

Some sceptics became converts as we ran those social media seminars, and they started on a journey that today sees them using content marketing and social channels successfully as part of their overall marketing and PR program.

I’d make a strong case that the “s” in social media stands for “same same but different.” 

As we work with clients developing social media capability, one truism has become a touchtone in our consulting practice.

The execution may be (very) different but the principles are the same.

The “same” is that great communication is still grounded in understanding the context, knowing the audiences and saying something worth listening to – in the audience’s judgement, rather than our own.

In reputation management, proactive positive PR, or in managing issues or a crisis, best practice offline is still best practice online. It just has to be executed fundamentally differently.

The “different” is usually faster, with greater transparency and more engagement. And of course messages are being delivered via very different channels. Yes, the medium does become the message. Or worse, the absence of the medium (let’s say you’re not using Twitter yet and everyone else is) becomes the message.

Once upon a time we were using faxes, lots of paper, telephones and briefings to reach audiences such as employees, journalists and government. Now we’re using Yammer, Twitter, Google+, Facebook, LinkedIn and blogs. The channels are different, and yes, they’ve changed the messages but strategy, process and creative are still needed and largely similar.

Three years ago when we ran our first social media seminars we talked about whether there was a business case for social media. At the time I suggested it was like websites in financial services in the 90s – by the time we had a business case we’d be the only one in town without one.

Financial services is now well past the social media tipping point.

Not having a website now is inconceivable. So too is not managing your reputation in social media. 

This post was first published in PRognosis, the BlueChip client communique on 16 February 2012

Why financial services suddenly had a social media conversion

It's been a while since we first started the conversation. And last year suddenly the dialogue changed complexion.

Instead of saying:

"Really? No it's just another Gen Y fad" or

"Sure, that will work for Coke but not for our (insert financial services brand here) audiences" or

"I don't think we need twitter or facebook. Not really our audience"

...many senior executives started to ask...

"How do we get there?"

And what drove the change? Well there was carrot and stick I suspect - from above, below and outside.

Before I start sounding too much like a Dr Seuss book, let me explain.

Many times recently I have heard (forgive the paraphrasing if you recognise yourself):

1. The Board want to know what we are doing about social media
2. Our staff feel we really should be using social media / using social media more
3. We had this issue that started on twitter/facebook/on a blog/online but we couldn't deal with it properly because we're really not set up to.

And so now we have social media religion. Yes, it's a touch feverish but doubtless that will settle down after the first blush of conversion wears off and social becomes the 'new new new normal'.

We've had the "new normal", post GFC. We've had the "new new normal" of volatility and GFC Mark II threats. Now I'm calling a similar major shift - the new new new normal.

Okay it's kind of hokey jargon but long term, social media will fundamentally change how we communicate as people and organisations far more than a couple of bouts with liquidity issues, bank failures and sovereign debt issues.

Possibly it already has.

If so, most in financial services are playing catch up.

Four economists worth listening to...and one you MUST hear

While I tweet and blog from events I usually don't re-publish the subsequent content. The Financial Standard Chief Economist's breakfast (see Kaitlin Walsh's summary in the post below) is worth making an exception for.

If you're looking for a little light economic-style entertainment I can highly recommend Tim Harcourt's presentation.
For a global view check out the presentation by Principal Global Investors' Bob Baur. Bob is a regular visitor to Australia, and as we've found (PGI are a client), in great demand from media outlets keen to hear his particular take on the global economy and what that might mean for Australia. It helps that he has a better-than-usual set of economic jokes. And no, I'm not referring to PIIGS, BRICs, houses made of straw or the big bad wolf!
Finally, Saul Eslake, on productivity, blew me away. Breathless as that sounds, the data he presented was a wake-up call to Australian employers, the education sector and government. OK, I'm late catching on - Saul and others have been talking productivity for some time. If you're not familiar with the subject it's very worth a quick look at some of his slides. The implications are serious for Australia's future.
Richard Gibbs (Maquarie Group) and Clifford Bennett (White Crane Group) were also good value.

Only got time for one? Definately Saul Eslake.