4/23/2006 11:45 PM
It took the better part of seven decades for women's voting rights to evolve from the "Bloomer Girl" marches to the ratification of Amendment XIX to the Constitution of the United States.
It took less than a decade in the 1950s for women to win equal employment rights after the formation of the National Organization for Women.
Even as the New Hampshire primary for the 1992 presidential election approached, informed citizens across the country asked the question "Bill Who?" A week after the election, Bill Clinton was a household name in all 50 states.
Several years went by before Congress passed landmark securities legislation to address deficiencies in securities trading highlighted by the Great Depression. But it was only a matter of months after the failures of Enron and WorldCom that Congress enacted Sarbanes-Oxley.
In effect, the time frame for opinion formation has been compressed -- a shorter time span for ideation, response and action. Consensus is reached more quickly and the place where an idea originates is no longer a concern. The flow of information is both instant and ubiquitous.
Books have been written about how people, individually and in groups, form opinions and attitudes. Even with all the technical advances that surfeit us with information and persuasion, hearing it from a friend or neighbor - word of mouth - still has the most powerful influence on our thinking and our behavior affecting large segments of our lives.
But opinion formation has always been influenced by the media, ranging from posters and broadsides after the invention printing press in the 15th Century to newspapers and magazines, and, starting in the early 20th century, the progression, driven by technology, of movies, radio, television (broadcast and cable) and, most recently, e-mail and the worldwide web plus the mind-numbing amalgam of the computer and wireless communications.
There's little doubt that the way people form attitudes and opinions nowadays is undergoing a sea of change. Those responsible for making policy decisions that affect the lives of others are fully aware of the new environment in which they govern or manage - even teach. Not only is the information input at hand several magnitudes more plentiful than just a few years ago, the pervasiveness of the media, especially the Internet and television, reflects a compulsion for immediate response and near total transparency. "Playback" and reaction are forthcoming even as the decision making process goes forward, sometimes reflective of the body politic but most frequently mirroring special interests skillfully crafted and presented.
The problem for society is whether leadership can survive under conditions that are influencing, perhaps even forcing our leaders to respond to measurable public demand. Would it have been possible for President Roosevelt to support the British war effort against Nazi Germany with the constant din of the media and polls overwhelmingly in favor of strict neutrality? Could President Nixon have opened the doors to a relationship with China if diplomacy had been conducted in a fishbowl?
There's something about forming attitudes and opinions that calls for deliberation and considerable discourse give-and-take. Maybe we would be better off if we could freeze the time frame compression that gives us the instant gratification that both media and public now crave.
# # # # 2/14/2006 8:55 PM
Harold Burson, in a survey conducted by PRWeek, was described as "the century's most influential PR figure." This recognition is a culmination of more than fifty years of serving as counselor to and confidante of corporate CEOs, government leaders and heads of public sector institutions.
PRWeek's summary of his career recapitulates his role as public relations preeminent practitioner:
"The architect of the largest public relations agency in the world today, Burson-Marsteller chairman Harold Burson's contribution is immense in many other ways besides. He started practicing the concept of integrated marketing decades before the term was even invented. He brought PR into the advertising business at Young & Rubicam as an equal (it's arguably never been achieved again). His development of training programs set the benchmark that other agencies have only recently caught up with. He has personally sponsored and supported programs, industry bodies, universities and charities to improve the profession. His mentoring of talent has spawned a whole wave of ex-Burson PR agency start-ups. He created a unique Burson culture that still unites former employees. And last but certainly not least, his personal counsel has enlightened the thinking of boardrooms at many Fortune 100 companies and across the globe."
Mr. Burson has contributed to the public relations industry and worldwide community as a member and leader of several organizations, among them: Presidential appointee to the Fine Arts Commission, Washington, 1981-1985; Chairman of the National Council on Economic Education; trustee of The Economics Club of New York; Chairman of the USIA Public Relations Advisory Committee, and board member of the World Wildlife Fund (Geneva). He was elected to the Horatio Alger Society in 1986 and is an Executive Council Member of the Center for the Study of Southern Culture at the University of Mississippi.
Mr. Burson is founder of the Kennedy Center Corporate Fund, Washington, D.C., a director of Kennedy Center Productions, Inc., and a trustee and founder of the Fortas Chamber Music Fund. He is a member of the New York Society of Security Analysts, the New York Academy of Medicine, the President's Advisory Board of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Advisory Board of the Business Council for International Understanding. He was Chairman of the Public Relations Seminar in 1984.
Mr. Burson has received numerous honors and awards, including The Public Relations Society of America Gold Anvil Award (1980), and the Arthur W. Page Society Hall of Fame Award (1991). He was named Public Relations Professional of the Year by Public Relations News (1977 and 1989). He received the Alexander Hamilton Medal from the Institute of Public Relations (1999); the Athena Award from the Partnership for Women's Health at Columbia University School of Medicine (2000); PRSA Atlas Award for International Achievement (1998); the John W. Hill Award for Leadership from the New York Chapter of PRSA (1993). He also received the Millennium Award, University of Florida, College of Journalism (2000), and was the First Executive-in-Residence at the University of Kentucky, College of Communications (2000). Recently, he received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the College of Communication, University of Texas at Austin (2002) and the Alumni Hall of Fame (2002) Award from the Memphis City Schools.
Boston University honored him with a Doctor of Humane Letters degree (hon.) in 1988. He is a graduate of the University of Mississippi and was elected to the Alumni Hall of Fame in 1986. He is a veteran of World War II with service as a combat engineer in France, Belgium, Holland and Germany. As an Army news correspondent for American Forces Network, he covered the Nuremberg Trial of leading Nazi war criminals. 7/31/2006 9:35 AM
A few months ago I was asked to talk with the CEO of a FORTUNE 100 company that, for week after week, was the subject of adverse news coverage that would likely continue for some months until litigation settled the issue.* His first question to me was, which of the many audiences that are important to our company should I be paying most attention to?
When I told him it was his hundred thousand or so employees, he was somewhat surprised. He admitted later he had expected me to say the media -- from his vantage point, the reporters and editors who were causing him the most grief.
Look at it this way, I said. Every person on your payroll is someone's expert on your company. Your security people, your entry level hires, everybody - but most important of all, those who actually get face-to-face with your customers or are in contact with them by e-mail, telephone or otherwise.
I pointed out the obvious, that when any large, successful company gets beat up in the media for weeks or months, employees at every level get questions -- from family members, from friends and neighbors, and especially customers and others who do business with the company. All of them are looking for authoritative answers; they are looking for the "real" story. In fact, surveys show that many, if not most, are skeptical about what they read in newspapers and magazines or hear and see on radio or TV. Given this situation, corporate management has an obligation - starting with the CEO - to provide all employees the capability to respond to questions they are asked. In fact, doing so provides management an enormous multiplier in delivering messages they want using what surveys prove is the most impactful of all communications media - word of mouth.
Further reinforcing my point to my CEO captive audience, I commented that his company invests millions of dollars, if not tens of millions, on sales and technical training. (This particular company's customer service force is actually the envy of its industry, capable of addressing every aspect of every product and service the company offers.) I said it also is very likely that they invest nothing to keep those who meet frequently face-to-face with the firm's customers informed on what the company itself is all about: its mission, its policies, the issues, some positive, some negative that arise in all companies. Accordingly, when a customer puts a "corporate-type" question to a sales or technical representative, he/she, to protect his/her good name with the customer, is forced to respond with hearsay information or simply "wing" it.
The same principle applies on the factory floor. Studies have consistently shown that production workers look to their first line of supervision - foremen in the terminology of many industries - for company information. Moreover, these same studies show that production workers regard their foreman (forewoman?) as the most credible source -- more believable than their shift superintendent, more believable than the plant manager, more believable than the CEO. Yet, few companies undertake any serious initiative to provide their first line of supervision with an authentic body of knowledge about the company itself. Foremen, too, are forced to "wing" it or depend on hearsay or gossip.
In reality, the long existing employee lack-of-knowledge situation - actually an information vacuum - seems to be moving in a positive direction. CEO's and the public relations / communications officers who serve them (including, too, enlightened HR officers) are recognizing the need to disseminate company information more broadly. As organizations flatten and decision making is pushed to lower levels, we at Burson-Marsteller are finding that communications training and sensitizing programs once confined to senior and, in some instances, upper middle management groups are now being expanded to include literally hundreds of middle managers.
It's a move in the right direction, but there's still a long way to go before companies gain maximum benefit from the communications heft that can be mustered in their own employee ranks.
*The company is not a Burson-Marsteller client. 5/9/2006 8:10 PM
A couple weeks ago I spent two days in Brussels, by my estimate my 70th visit to the first European city I got to know way back in the cold, cold winter of 1944-45. My army unit, a combat engineer group, was stalled on the Holland-German border and our commanding officer decided to set up a PX-beer hall for enlisted men. He chose me to run it, and part of the job, the best part, was taking a convoy of 2 1/2-ton trucks to Brussels to pick up beer, Coca-Cola, cigarettes, soap, chocolate bars and other goodies that made American soldiers so popular among liberated Europeans. I made the two-day 200-mile trip once a week for 10 weeks.
As headquarters for British Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery's XXII Army Group, Brussels was off limits to American troops (as was Paris to British troops). Brussels suffered little serious war damage and was a welcoming destination for an American non-com with special orders.
Years later, in 1959-60, Brussels again became a regular port of call for me when we were planning our expansion to Europe. Already, conventional wisdom was that Brussels would be seat of the European Common Market (Belgium was perceived to be "neutral" vis-a'-vis France and Germany). However, we put our first overseas office in Geneva because most American companies were locating their Europe headquarters in Switzerland for tax reasons.
In 1964, Congress eliminated what were then called "tax havens" and U.S. companies flocked to Brussels, including half our Geneva clients. Opening a Brussels office in 1965 with 15 people, half from B-M/Geneva, was a no-brainer.
Geneva and Brussels were structured differently from all other Burson-Marsteller offices. Each of them was organized to serve the pan-European market and worked in as many as 10 languages. This model largely followed that of our clients. Their marketing organizations early on treated Europe as a single market with the anomaly of using different languages. As sales grew, especially in the larger markets, they (and we) would establish offices in the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and later central and eastern Europe - each committed to a single country market.
It was therefore no surprise on my recent visit that B-M/Brussels continues to embrace a pan-European outlook. Its staff includes some 24 nationalities who interact, at any one time, with clients in a dozen or more countries. As the European Union evolved from its initial six member countries to 12 and then to 25, our staff grew in both language capability and cultural sensitivity. It also has deepened its knowledge base in issues, industry-by-industry, that are the object of the EU's growing oversight. I was privileged to have my colleagues "educate" me on some of the office's present undertakings, including matters involving fire safety, philanthropy, trade regulations and health care.
For years, European countries with parliamentary forms of government have regarded "lobbying" with some high degree of scorn. But now that lobbying the European Commission and its affiliated entities has become more common place, there seems to be a grudgingly increasing tolerance for the practice which we Americans recognize as critical to the democratic process. Through the years, I have pointed out to my European friends that the First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees not only freedom of religion, speech and the press, but also the right "to peaceably assemble" and to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is a matter of great pride to me that my esteemed colleague, Jeremy Galbraith, who heads B-M operations in Brussels, is taking a leading role in promoting registration and ethical conduct standards by lobbyists petitioning EU representatives.
To me, there have been two constants in Brussels since the coming of the European Common Market. The first is the superb food (I was fortunate to be in Brussels for their spring jumbo white asparagus!) The second is that the European Union continues to grow; in fact, I cannot remember a time during the past 40 years when visiting Brussels I failed to notice the expansion of an existing EU building or the construction of still another. While this bodes well for the public affairs business, I think it would serve EU policymakers well to listen more to those companies and industries and NGO's subject to increased oversight and regulation and consider their needs as well as the public interest. For sure, there's a need for business oversight and regulation; the question is what kind and how much; the difficulty is establishing a proper balance - which requires the input of all affected parties.
# # # # 9/13/2006 1:50 AM
The last thing I need at this stage in my life is another award - especially one requiring a 6,000 mile journey to accept it.
But the award I accepted in London on September 11 has special meaning for me. It's the Alan Campbell-Johnson Medal recognizing lifetime achievement in international public relations.
Though most of you have never heard of Alan Campbell-Johnson, he is one of the great public relations counselors of the 20th Century. A Londoner, he died about 10 years ago after a lifelong career advising at the highest levels of government and industry. He had his own boutique consultancy, and it was my pleasure to know him for the better part of three decades. In fact, we shared a client, The Coca-Cola Company.
Alan's place in history is defined by his close professional relationship with Earl Mountbatten, a member of the British royal family and a significant participant in world history during and after World War II. Campbell-Johnson served Mountbatten as chief press officer when Mountbatten was Supreme Allied Commander of the China-Burma-India Theater. In 1947, Prime Minister Clement Atlee appointed Mountbatten to the daunting position of Viceroy of India with the single objective of implementing Britain's commitment to give India its independence and to do so with all due speed. Again, Mountbatten called on Campbell-Johnson to be his chief press officer and to serve as one of a small inner circle of policy advisers. Mountbatten accomplished his assigned task in barely 18 months with India independent and Pakistan a separate new nation - but not without tremendous blood shed and upheaval.
Campbell-Johnson came into prominence because he was one of the few insiders who kept a diary, published at mid-century as "Mission with Mountbatten." It continues to be one of the basic source books on the day-to-day happenings that led to what is commonly referred to as "the partition of India," one of the last century's most significant historical events.
I am pleased to share with you my remarks on receiving the Alan Cambell-Johnson Medal from his widow, Faye.
# # # # 5/21/2006 11:05 PM
My bona fides, I believe, are pretty solid when it comes to integrated communications. Indeed, that was the basis upon which Bill Marsteller and I formed Burson-Marsteller 53 years ago. Bill was in the advertising/market research business; my business was public relations. We termed our newly combined services "total communications" which we offered to industrial clients - today's business-to-business (b-to-b) slice of the market.
Our proposition was that the appropriate combination of advertising and public relations would best serve a client's marketing needs. Our timing was exquisite: public relations - mainly, pro-active publicity - was new to most industrial companies (a major exception was General Electric). We believed the proper combination of advertising and public relations would make the cash register ring.
Unfortunately, our measurement research was mostly anecdotal. We couldn't get b-to-b clients to ante up the cost or even match the half we were willing to put up. But we did persuade the maker of a new protein shampoo to test the cost efficacy of three marketing communications strategies. In one test market, advertising alone introduced the product; in another, publicity; in the third, a combination of advertising and publicity. (Getting publicity was a breeze: our spokespeople were the top four models of that era!)
The results showed that the advertising/public relations combination was most cost efficient. Publicity was slightly more cost effective than advertising alone but it moved considerably less product. Additional public relations budget would have likely been wasteful. We had literally saturated the publicity test market city with coverage in both the limited print media and on TV talk shows of that era.
Of course, what we now term "marketing" public relations embraces considerably more than publicity. Relationship building with prospective and actual consumers who share an interest in the product or service can be a powerful influence on sales. As can tie-ins and other promotional initiatives. Usually, they work best with products or services that are truly newsworthy or, like the fabled Cabbage Patch doll, simply appealing to newspaper and magazine readers, TV viewers (broadcast and cable) and radio listeners.
Certainly, marketers short-change themselves when they fail to integrate the full tool kit of public relations in their ongoing campaigns as well as when launching new products. But the reality is that, more often than not, public relations is an after-thought in the marketing program, funded by the few nickels and dimes left over from the media buy.
Public relations as part of the marketing mix can pay off in many ways. Perhaps most valuable, it can reinforce the credibility of the advertising. As David Ogilvy once opined (though not in these exact words) "the supermarket shopper is no dummy; she's your wife and mine." Customers know the difference between a third party endorsement and a paid ad. Public relations initiatives can also extend the reach of advertising to audiences that do not justify an advertising spend. And for many products, the skillfully crafted public relations program can bring excitement and immediacy that only few commercials or print ads can achieve.
Having said that, do I believe public relations is a substitute for media advertising? Is an either/or choice - either advertising or public relations - a sound marketing decision for the vast majority of products and services? For me, the answer comes easy. Public relations undertakings alone simply cannot achieve the long term marketing goals for consumer products and services. The simple fact is that we public relations professionals cannot guarantee the reach, the frequency, the timing or even the delivery of a specific message the way advertising can. While we can quickly establish recognition and even preference for many products at launch, over time we cannot maintain the message barrage necessary to overcome the claims of an aggressive competitor or the attention of consumers who are over- burdened with message glut.
Very likely, some fellow public relations professionals take issue with my point of view. But one guidepost I have followed during the long journey of my career is never promise what you can't deliver. In the big scheme of consumer marketing, I simply don't believe public relations alone is the answer. But I have great certitude that both advertising and public relations have a place in the marketing mix. And it is both perplexing and disappointing that more major marketers fail to recognize and take advantage of the constructive role of public relations in a marketing program - and at a ridiculously low relative cost.
# # # # 2/15/2006 2:25 AM
Blogging and me....
....would seem to have a generational incongruity.
But perhaps not.
The fact is I have always enjoyed sharing experiences -- 85 years worth and, I hope, still counting.
Some of the best advice my father gave me when I was growing up was "always be in the know." His way of "being in the know" was reading omnivorously.
I heeded his advice and it has served me well. Reading is as much a part of my daily regimen as breakfast, lunch and dinner -- an hour on the way to the office, an hour going home, at least an hour before falling asleep.
Mornings I read The New York Times and Wall Street Journal -- The Times's front section and WSJ's two column news summary. Then the editorial/Op-Ed pages. Scanning, I usually get through The Journal and The Times Business Section. Homeward bound I attack sections of The Times I missed in the morning, like Arts and, on Tuesdays, Science. But my main late afternoon reading is The Financial Times and The New York Sun.
Early in the evening I turn to magazines. Mondays I immerse myself in The New Yorker, sometimes reading until I am ready for sleep. Another is The Atlantic. As would be expected, I also read Fortune, BusinessWeek and Forbes. I scan Time and Newsweek, and find myself intrigued with a newcomer titled The Week, a sprightly written compendium of news and features. My "serious" periodical reading is mainly Commentary and I confess to peeking at the photos in Vanity Fair.
My kitchen table suppers at home are accompanied by NBC Nightly News, followed by Jim Lehrer's PBS News Hour. Sunday mornings I take in ABC's George Stephanopoulis, NBC's Tim Russert and CBS's Robert Schieffer (Week-day mornings, my TV is always tuned to Don Imus on MSNBC).
My most enjoyable reading is books and I am somewhat eclectic in what I read, about two-thirds non-fiction, one-third fiction. While I usually don't read business books - none of the "how to" variety -- I like business non-fiction books like a recent one I read on the influence of cod fish on the world economy. I've recently read others on spices, salt, coffee, cotton and the Oxford English Dictionary. But my principal concentration during the past decade has been on the American Revolution and the world's first and most enduring democracy. I have read biographies of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, the two Adams -- father and son and their cousin, Samuel, Ben Franklin and numerous accounts of the War for Independence and the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. My most recent is an account of the war from the British point of view written by a Scottish historian.
The fiction I read is both contemporary and otherwise. My favorite novel is The Forsyth Saga, John Galsworthy's 2700-page forerunner to the dynastic novels that have been so popular the past quarter-century, published in 1936 and recognized by a Nobel Prize. I have read it three times. Thomas Wolfe (the North Carolinean who died at age 38) is my favorite American author and his novel I enjoyed most is "Look Homeward Angel." My favorite contemporary novelist is John Irving and I particularly liked "A Prayer for Owen Meany."
How does reading translate to someone whose career is public relations? And why is it important to be well-read?
I have a theory that goes like this: when people meet people they make quick judgments that are continually reinforced as the meeting progresses. The first judgment (usually the prevailing judgment throughout the relationship) comes in the first thirty to sixty seconds of the encounter. A common interest is the key to bonding. Since one meets people from all walks of life, knowing a little something about a lot of things can help establish that bond. It's only natural for people to feel a kinship with someone of like interests who can talk about them.
Put another way, I frequently regard an introduction to a person of interest as an occasion that can be used to set up a follow-up meeting or assure that my telephone call is returned. I figure I have thirty to sixty seconds in which to make a positive impression. I must use that time to say something that causes the listener to think I know what I am talking about - recognizing, of course, that I must "talk the talk" the listener wants to hear rather than what I might want to say. On such occasions I have always felt my father's admonition "being in the know" better prepared me to accomplish my objective - establishing connections and relationships that might one day be useful.
One thing I can tell you: it has worked for me. 2/21/2006 7:10 PM
It's often said age is in the mind. Growing up in the 1920s and 30s, I couldn't even imagine I would be around for my 85th birthday. In those days, most people settled for the Biblical three-score-and-ten. Still blessed with most of my faculties, I reflect, from time to time, on what, for me, has been a life that, in earlier years, I would never have thought possible. However, I would be less than candid communicating the impression I now consider my self "old." Like many others, my perspective on young, middle and old age has changed with the passing years. Approaching 40, I thought middle age started sometime after 50. Nearing 65, I figured old age started at 75. Now that I am 85 (hopefully still counting!) I stubbornly believe old age is far in the distance.
I am a first generation American. My parents emigrated from Leeds, in the English Midlands, to Memphis. I grew up in the South in a household more European than southern - a circumstance of significant influence on my life. I am old enough to remember the Great Depression (note the capital letters) of the 1930s. Few of my generation escaped the deprivations and devastation of poverty. Little wonder I chose the subway to take me where I needed to go most of my business life in New York. (I even figured out how to get to LaGuardia from our former office on Third Avenue by taking the E or F train to Queens Plaza and transferring to the Q33 bus; it was barely 10 percent the cost of a taxi and was quicker!)
World War II was a cataclysm in the lives of my generation (I was almost 20 when Pearl Harbor was bombed). I was an enlisted man with a Combat Engineer Group in Europe the better part of two years. I saw first-hand the flattened cities of Germany and the ravage of almost six years of war in other countries. The impression it made on me - one of opportunity as well as despair - undoubtedly contributed to my decision to take Burson-Marsteller overseas in 1961. That coupled with my earlier exposure to parents whose roots were in Europe. Life is a continuum.
I truly believe the years I have lived - 1921 to 2006 -- are the most interesting sequential 85 years in all of history. Just think of the changes people my age have seen and experienced. Radio when it was new, first "crystal sets" with earphones and then radio consoles that became status symbols in middle-class living rooms; now we are bedazzled by the ever-changing progression of miracle boxes that send and receive information and entertainment around the world. Air travel as late as 1935 was still a novelty; some four decades later American astronauts walked on the moon. I remember the milk man delivering the milk and the iceman delivering the ice in horse-drawn wagons at a time when the staple cure-all medicines were aspirin, calomel, castor oil and paregoric and a long distance telephone call was a special event. I remember the first coast-to-coast newscasts (CBS and Edward R. Murrow) when Nazi armies stormed the Polish border in 1939. I remember people going to the movies (before 6 o'clock tickets cost a dime) or wandering the aisles of downtown department stores seeking relief from the summer heat in my home town's only air conditioned buildings. Nowadays no one can deny the rapid evolution to a higher order in almost every material aspect of life. In science, communications, medicine and technology generally, the progress has been mind-numbing.
But I must confess to some misgivings on whether we as a society have advanced in our sense of right and wrong -- in short, the values we live by. I am troubled that we seem not to have many heroes nowadays, whether in government, in sports, in entertainment, in business. Who are the equals of Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill or Charles DeGaulle? Of Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams or Lou Gehrig? Who is today's Einstein? Nearly every institution in our society has suffered a loss of public esteem, some important ones, like the Presidency and the Congress, alarmingly so. Time and again, surveys show we believe less in what we read in our newspapers and what we hear and see on radio and television.
Nor am I one who boasts that mine is really "the greatest generation." But my impression of the now about-to-retire boomer generation, its successor X-generation and those who follow, is, increasingly, that fewer hold to the same values that governed our post-World War II behavior. The descriptor "now" generation seems to be an apt one. Instant gratification represented by instant wealth seems, more and more, the measure of success, if not happiness.
What bothers me most is my fear that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren won't live nearly as good a life as I have lived. We are leaving them an unconscionable debt burden, a public school system failing miserably in preparing them for a technology-based economy, a physical infrastructure some parts of which are beyond repair. Most of all, I fear they have seen too often their elders compromise on the meaning of truth, embrace the credo that winning is everything, believe monetary accretion is the ultimate metric and that, in politics winner takes all and compromise is an unpardonable sign of weakness.
But I have enough faith to believe those problems can be solved. As William Faulkner said in his Nobel Prize address, "the human spirit will endure." The pendulum swings two ways. In matters both social and economic, it has an inherent correction mechanism that has worked marvelously well in this great country in which I have been privileged to live and in many other countries around the world.
As for me personally, it's been a journey beyond my expectations. And as for my continuing to come to the office every day? Perhaps, it's because no one ever told me not to. 10/30/2006 7:30 PM
Just recently, I did a two-week tour of five Burson-Marsteller offices in three countries on two continents: New Delhi, Zurich, Bern, Geneva and Milan.* B-M colleagues at each office updated me on current client assignments. I also spoke to client, public relations professional and student groups. A frequent question was "how does the work we do compare with that of our American counterparts?"
For many of the 45 years I have visited Burson-Marsteller offices overseas, my answer (not always publicly articulated) was usually that our overseas undertakings were somewhat less sophisticated than those of our U.S. offices. One exception was London where I long ago conceded a general equality of professionalism that exists to this day.
There were, of course, exceptions. Individual creativity has little regard for national boundaries. In fact, some of our most creative solutions came from unexpected places and rather early in our evolution as a global business. Two flash backs I remember as if today:
+Tokyo, the late 1970s: Avon's goal was to introduce the "Avon Lady" to Japan. But one big impediment needed to be addressed. In Tokyo, police are stationed in every neighborhood and don't easily tolerate strangers knocking on doors - that simply wasn't done in Japan. A young local B-M staffer had an idea: invite wives of neighborhood police to an "Avon Lady" party and let them see for themselves how convenient it is to buy cosmetics without leaving their homes. Almost magically, neighborhood police were most cooperative. (The same team went on to stage the first women's marathon in Japan - sponsored by Avon.)
+Germany, the 1980s: AIDS was just making known its presence in the U.S. and Western Europe. The German Bundestag appropriated millions of marks for a safe sex educational program. Our Frankfurt office won the business, one of our biggest wins ever in Germany. How to spread the word? Our team's response was to purchase 50 or more VW station wagons (the SUV of the day!) and staff them with a guitar player/singer duo who could take turns driving from one young-person venue to another and do both personal appearances featuring specially-written lyrics and music and print and TV media appearances all delivering safe sex messages. I like to think our program made it possible for the WHO to cite Germany as the country in Western Europe with the lowest HIV infection rate.
Most of us public relations professionals are not likely to think of India as being in the public relations forefront. But to do so would be far off the mark. One must remember that India, from the time of its independence in 1947, was the world's most populous democracy. As in the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand (and the U.S., of course), its democratic institutions have spawned public relations initiatives directed toward multiple audiences.
The case history my Indian colleagues showed me dealt with employee retention. Using airline mileage programs as a model, they developed a meaningful reward program structured, in effect, to put "golden handcuffs" on high performers - the longer one remained an employee, the more valuable one's point cache. Results have been immediately measurable -employee turnover has been sharply reduced.
In Switzerland, my colleagues in Zurich and Bern are regularly engaged by industry, professional and citizen groups to represent their interests in the referenda process that's unique to the world's longest surviving democracy.
As in California and a few other states in the U.S., citizens can both propose new legislation and challenge parliamentary decisions in the four referenda held every year. On behalf of clients in the business and professional communities, our Swiss offices are regularly engaged on issues as varied as biotechnology, nuclear power, privatization of the Zurich airport and prescription drugs. As in any electoral process, measurement comes easy for the work of the public relations consultant - our client either wins or loses. Happily for my Swiss colleagues, they're invariably on the winning side!
And the same holds true for our offices in Italy, where corporate reputation, positioning and protecting the environment are active priorities. On future visits to overseas offices, I expect to see much of the same: a high degree of professionalism, a high degree of sophistication and a general recognition that talking the talk requires walking the walk. As much so in distant overseas markets as in the U.S and the U.K.
For one associated with a global firm, it is important to emphasize that it is local nationals who have gained the public relations professionalism and sophistication which may, at one time, have been centered mainly in the U.S. - local nationals at both managerial and staff levels. In fact, local nationals now almost exclusively head and staff our 40-plus offices outside the United States. It's an example of globalization in action- an example of the magic of communications, training and a commitment to a single standard of excellence underpinned by a universal shared culture.
*Some of my early colleagues once described such a trip as "Burson's definition of a vacation." 6/6/2006 9:18 PM
Although many of my associates are under the false notion that I know almost everyone in corporate America, I have never met Hank Paulson, the new Secretary of the Treasury-designate. But having known several of his predecessors* who both contributed to and reflected the Goldman Sachs culture that has long inspired its leadership to embrace public service, I am comforted that the money part of our government will be in good hands.
Hopefully, Mr. Paulson's decision to leave his corporate ivory tower to enter the public arena will serve as an example for other CEOs to participate in both the public debate and in the spirit of "volunteerism" which de Toqueville found so unique just a half-century after our nation's birth.
For some years now corporate CEOs have eschewed the idea of speaking out on public issues. Many have severely curtailed involvement in such not-for-profit institutions as universities, hospitals, social service organizations and cultural undertakings. To be sure, they continue their corporate financial support and are often willing to lend their names and luncheon or dinner physical presence to fund raisers.
In a remarkably prescient speech to the Economic Club of New York ten years ago, David Rockefeller, then in his 80th year, put it this way:
"In my days as Chairman of the Chase (Bank), executives like Tom Watson (IBM), Reg Jones (GE), Fletcher Byrom (Koppers), Irving Shapiro (DuPont), Dick Shinn (MetLife), Walter Wriston (Citicorp) and many others were vocal and visible both here and abroad in speaking out on community, Industry and national issues.
"Today, I sense that this is much less the case. Indeed, in recent years business leaders have devoted themselves to making more and more money, and find themselves with less and less time to devote to civic and social responsibilities and to sinking roots in their communities and showing their loyalty.
"The danger, if this current self-serving behavior continues, is that the voice of business will become more muted and the views of business more irrelevant to the important issues of the day. We will find ourselves increasingly marginalized and without the moral authority to demand a hearing from government or the people.
"Business leaders must recognize their own and their companies' broader role in the public dialogue. And they should encourage their employees, particularly their senior associates, to take an active role in the public arena.
"Such initiatives will help to dispel the notion that corporate executives are faceless bureaucrats, interested only in furthering selfish ends and insensitive to the wider concerns of mankind."
It can be said that David Rockefeller worked in a different age and in a less challenging business environment. Today's financial markets are more demanding, and executive compensation is at a level that compels CEOs' full time attention to the bottom line.
But in a democracy such as ours, business exists at the sufferance of the public. At the moment, public sufferance for corporate America is at an all-time low- in company with the executive and legislative branches of government, the public education establishment and, of course, lawyers, advertising and public relations specialists.
One reason could be that those who know business best - the leaders of America's corporations - have seemingly lost their voices. At a time when the economy has been strong and unemployment low (though many downsized middle managers now work for significantly reduced pay), few are speaking up for business and its role in a global society. In fact, Hank Paulson was almost alone in publicly condemning those who, a few years ago, so flagrantly violated their fiduciary responsibilities to shareowners and the public-at-large. In effect, Paulson said business must clean up its act if it sought to retain public goodwill.
Blessed by an abundance of natural resources and a friendly climate, this country owes much of its greatness to its market economy. To be sure, the market economy falters from time to time; it is cyclical and it sometimes has been corrupted from within. But its greatest attribute is that, once askew, it has an innate ability to correct itself. And with every correction for more than 200 years, the next cycle has been stronger than its predecessor.
Today, all too few in business are stepping forward to explain the role of business and to condemn those transgressors whose nefarious actions give business a bad name. Too few are stepping forward to fight for the kind of legislative and regulatory environment that will enable U.S. companies to compete on the world stage. Too few are stepping forward to demand the kind of public education system that trains the young for 21st Century jobs. Too few are stepping forward to challenge the assumption that sales and earnings can forever increase at double digit rates.
The clock is ticking.
# # # #
*My first acquaintance with a Goldman Sachs CEO goes back to 1954. We had recently moved to Scarsdale and I patronized Henry's barber shop every other Saturday at 10 o'clock (I had more hair then). I kept returning to the same barber (Ernie) and noticed that the next chair (Karl) was filled by someone whose photo I had seen often in news media. He was Sidney Weinberg, senior partner at Goldman Sachs, a member of some 15 corporate boards and influential on the Washington scene.
After my third or fourth haircut, as we lifted ourselves from the barber chairs, Mr. Weinberg stuck out his hand and said "If we are destined to meet one another like this every other Saturday, we should greet one another by name - I'm Sidney Weinberg." My response was "I am happy to know you, Mr. Weinberg"- whereupon he countered "My friends call me Sidney." We continued to meet and talk briefly for more than a year before he moved from Scarsdale to New York.
When I read his obituary in The New York Times in 1969, I sent a personal note to his son, John, whom I had never met, and related my experience with his father. A day or so later, he telephoned me and said. "let's get together one day and talk about my old man." We did just that and still meet up with one another from time. John was then co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, sharing the position with my good friend, John Whitehead, who became Deputy Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration.
3/21/2006 7:24 PM
As with other callings, public relations has become increasingly specialized. Most large agencies are now a collection of silos, often independent of one another, peopled by media relations specialists, investor relations specialists, internal communications specialists, social responsibility specialists, branding specialists and on and on and on. Public relations departments of the largest corporations are usually no different.
This practice runs counter to developing the kind of person I have always perceived as needed to fill the topmost public relations positions. Such a person was once described as a "Renaissance Man" (today I should say: Renaissance Person). The public relations counselor described by Edward L. Bernays in his monumental "Crystallizing Public Opinion," published in 1923, was a person of intellect well-versed in worldly matters and possessed of broad experience, including a sensitivity to public opinion and public attitudes.
Despite the many years I have been given to think about the attributes of the ideal public relations counselor, it's been a lot easier for me to define the job than to specify the qualities one should possess for such positions. In fact, I did just that in a speech at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business in 1973. What follows is the substance of what I said more than 30 years ago.
* * * *
In a sense, the public relations professional doing his/her job for the modern corporation or public relations firm fulfils a role that may be divided into four parts:
First, he/she serves as the sensor of social change. He perceives those rumblings at the heart of society that augur good or ill for his organization. In a way, he is like a radar man. He gives early warning. And, after detecting the yearnings and stirrings, he interprets the signals for the management team.
His/her perceptions, of course, cannot be founded on intuitive judgments and guesswork. He must be objective and analytical; he can bring the insights of the social sciences to bear upon his conclusions. In analyzing change, he must have a strong sense of reality. He must identify the situation as it really is, not as he imagines it to be. He must be able to separate enduring social changes from current fads.
Here's an example of what I mean. When the subject of automation first came up, it was taken very seriously. Yet the social consequences of automation, while great, did not really shake up the corporation. On the other hand, when Women's Lib first hit the streets, it was not taken very seriously. Yet the consequences of the Women's Lib movement have had loud repercussions in many a hallowed corporate hall. It is, as the example indicates, the job of the public relations executive to make distinctions and to say to his management: "Look, you may think this stuff is nonsense, but it is a potentially powerful development. So let's start to make plans."
It is also the job of the public relations executive as corporate sensor to keep the attention of his management focused on the problem. How often have we heard businessmen who should know better claim that the critics of business are trying "to tear the system down." Now I have no doubt we have our revolutionaries, but the current mood isn't so much one of insurrection as reform. Corporate managers have enough to do without going through the enervating motions of setting up straw men so they can knock them down.
* * * *
The second role the chief public relations officer must fulfill is that of corporate conscience. I trust you will not infer from this that a person must be a public relations professional to be sensitive or have a conscience - or that public relations people behave in ways that are either more moral and ethical or more in the public interest than executives with different titles. There are others in the corporate hierarchy who may possess the same amount or even more of these attributes than the individuals responsible for public relations. But the fact is that being the professional corporate conscience is not part of the job description of other executives. It is (or should be) part of the job description of the chief public relations officer.
* * * *
The third major role of the public relations professional is that of communicator. The tendency is to think that communications is his/her only role. That is hardly the case although it is an important function.
Communications relating to social issues moves in two directions - internally and externally. Although external communications is important, it is, in many respects, secondary to and dependent upon an effective internal communication program.
It's one thing to adopt a policy, but quite another thing to make it work - especially in a corporation with multiple sites. The first hurdle is convincing employees the policy is not make-believe. Those who must make a policy work are not at corporate headquarters. Most likely they are in widely dispersed business units far from the executive suite. They are in human resources and operations: the interviewers, recruiters, managers, supervisors, foremen and so forth. If they don't believe the corporation means business, nothing will happen.
Internal communications must do more than tell or inform; its primary function is to bring about understanding. The more sensitive the issue, the more important the need to communicate effectively. The internal communications program must make available to all affected employees the information that will enable them to understand not only what is happening and what they are expected to do about it, but also why the new policies have been adopted. And, or course, there must be ample continuing communication to indicate how the program is progressing.
The success of any new policy, no mater how well-intentioned, will depend to some considerable degree upon how well the corporation has handled its internal communications. Indeed, we shouldn't even think about communicating this information outside the corporation until the policy has taken root and is working.
Communicating with external audiences is an equally difficult undertaking. The public relations executive must convince the public that the corporation is, indeed, being responsive. Critics on the outside looking in tend to question a corporation's sincerity. All too often they mistake a real and genuine response for a seeming response. When a corporation asks for time to make an adjustment, the critics declare that the company is merely stalling in the hope it won't have to act at all. The fact is the corporation is often slow to react. It's that kind of a creature. It's easy enough for the chief executive officer to issue a public statement that reverses a long-standing policy overnight. But it's just as difficult for a CEO to mandate change as it is for the President of the United States. Policy changes in themselves are not enough.
If the corporation informs the public the company has a new policy, the public may very well respond: "So what! We're not interested in knowing about policy changes; we're interested in substantive acts. What have you really done?" And if the corporation does not inform the public that it has, in fact, changed its policies, the public can accuse it of failing to take action. Effective external communications, therefore, is critical. The public relations executive must convince the public that the corporation is responsive, that it is taking actions that exceed mere policy statements, and that genuine progress is being made toward meeting public expectations.
The fourth function of the public relations professional is to serve as corporate monitor. I am tempted to use the word ombudsman here, for I think it is in the spirit of an ombudsman that the public relations officer should regard his job. Obviously, he can't be an ombudsman in the strictest sense of the word. But since public relations is involved with public issues, there is a need for constant monitoring of corporate policies and programs to make sure that they do, indeed, match public expectations. If the programs are not functioning or if they fall short of expectations, it is his/her job to agitate for new programs and new policies. It seems to me quite natural for the public relations practitioner to adopt this posture. If he fails to do so, he fails to live up to the requirements of his job.
* * * *
As much as ever, I believe that's an apt description of the public relations function in the corporation of the 21st Century. 12/6/2006 7:25 PM
It doesn't happen often, but during the past couple of months two powerful regulatory agencies reversed previous major positions affecting literally millions of people. One was the World Health Organization (WHO) which said it would promote the use of the pesticide DDT to combat malaria in developing nations. More recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lifted its ban on silicone breast implants for cosmetic purposes.
We at Burson-Marsteller had a major involvement with both issues resulting in the U.S. ban on DDT in 1972 and the ban on silicone breast implants in 1992.
* * * *
DDT
Our client was Stauffer Chemical Company, then the world's largest DDT producer, long since merged into another corporate entity. Briefly, here's some history: DDT appeared just as World War II began and immediately assumed a magical reputation for getting rid of mosquitoes and other bugs. I personally encountered it in late July 1944 at the end of a six day voyage across the Atlantic. They wouldn't let GI's off the troop ship in Liverpool harbor until we were sprayed with DDT.
In the 50s and 60s, DDT became the accepted agricultural pesticide. Low in cost, it eliminated bugs on all manner of food crops and also sharply reduced malaria in developing countries. But with publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" in 1962, nascent environmentalists opposed DDT -- in fact, just about any chemical pesticides on food crops. Simultaneously, naturalists discovered that shells of hatching eggs of peregrine falcons, an endangered specie, were becoming thinner and thinner and, the cause was traced to their consumption of DDT residue. To exacerbate matters, DDT was found to be highly persistent as it made its way through the food chain. The possible extinction of peregrine falcons combined with potential human and animal health hazards spelled doom for DDT.
As to be expected, our client at first sought to defend DDT as safe when appropriately applied; but it soon became apparent that public opinion sided with saving the peregrine falcons (bald eagles, too) and it was banned in the United States in 1972. However, with Burson-Marsteller's support, our client stood firm on continuing the use of DDT to eradicate malaria in Africa and other developing countries where the disease was killing and debilitating millions of people, especially pregnant women and children. Even in the face of statements by reputable scientists that malaria was on its way to being totally eradicated, United Nations health agencies and others (under pressure from anti-pesticide environmentalists), scorned the use of DDT to fight malaria until the recent change in position by WHO.
* * * *
Silicon Breast Implants
From the 1960s onward silicone breast implants have been a popular subject for the media. For many years, the discussion centered mainly on vanity and cosmetic issues. But in the 1980s protests turned to more serious medical matters including lawsuits arising from ruptures that necessitated additional surgery and allegations that implants caused cancer and autoimmune diseases. The media, especially at the outset, accepted and reported on plaintiff lawyer charges without serious challenge. By 1990, some two million women had breast implants and more than 200,000 were added each year, most for the purpose of breast augmentation.
Dow Corning, the pioneer in silicone technology and the largest producer of breast implants was a long-time Burson-Marsteller client. Their top executives, starting with the CEO, responded near full time to NGO challenges, citing authentic positive medical studies by independent parties - with little success. In January 1992, the FDA requested manufacturers and physicians to voluntarily halt the sale and implantation of silicone breast implants. The following March, under siege from media and lawsuits, Dow Corning stopped manufacturing breast implants. After agreeing in March 1994 with other manufacturers and plaintiffs to a legal settlement fund of $4 billion to be paid over 30 years to women claiming damages, the company filed for bankruptcy protection a year later, citing "the potentially enormous financial and management drain" defending implant litigation.
The Dow Corning action occurred despite a study some eight months earlier by researchers at Harvard and the University of Maryland that found no association between silicone implants and autoimmune disease.
Meanwhile, two smaller suppliers of silicone breast implants, Mentor* and Allergan, continued to press FDA to reconsider their earlier adverse position on silicone breast implants, bolstered by the decision of an Institute of Medicine panel in June 1999 that found no evidence that silicone implants cause any major disease. Mentor stressed the psychological importance of breast reconstruction after mastectomy in its December 2003 FDA application to market silicone implants and preliminary approval was received in 2005. On November 18, the FDA took its biggest step yet: it approved Mentor and Allegan silicone gel implants for breast reconstruction and cosmetic augmentation to women 22 years and older.
Silicone breast implants now have the distinction of being the most studied medical device ever - and, as often claimed by their manufacturers, "the science is on our side."
* * * *
What are some lessons to be learned from these two decision reversals?
First, the "political process" is strongly affected by early news coverage of an issue. To their credit, reporters and editors are no longer the gullible recipients of information about "big companies doing bad things" that they were a decade past. All too many learned they had been used to create an environment strong enough to overcome even the best and purest in science.
Second, too many companies opt for a compromise solution too early in the process. Though tempting to "avoid the horrendous legal expenses and demands on management time," settlements are not always in the ultimate interest of the company being sued or for business as a whole. There are some instances where the principle involved is fully worth the cost in treasure and in time.
Third, eventually, in some instances, the system works - though not without cost.
# # # #
*Mentor is a client of Burson-Marsteller and B-M worked with Mentor throughout the FDA application and approval process. 6/26/2006 5:25 AM
An article in The New York Times a week or so ago* on Mary Travers of Peter, Paul and Mary fame got me to thinking about the life-long bonds that have developed among my Burson-Marsteller colleagues over the past five decades. We estimate more than 25,000 public relations professionals have graced one of our 50 or so offices over the past half century.
One of them was Mary Travers, now 69, who last year conquered leukemia with a bone marrow transplant. Although I have kept up with Mary through the years, I was not aware of her recent health threat; I am ever so happy she will do a dozen concerts this year.
Mary** joined Burson-Marsteller in the early 1960s. She put together the monthly clipping reports we then sent to clients to show them how much media coverage we got them. Over her three or four years with us, I recall vividly her singing in Greenwich Village and around Union Square on weekends with her pals, Peter and Paul. How surprised and happy we were a year or two after she left us for a full-time music career when "Blowin' in the Wind" topped the music charts week-after-week.
Totally coincidentally, Mary's father, Bob Travers, joined us about the time Peter, Paul and Mary took off. He came to us with impeccable writing credentials and we created the new position of "editorial director" for him. He read every news release, feature article and proposal prepared in our New York office; his signed approval was required before any written material could be sent to clients or the news media. The writing in our "deliverables" was never better. After about 10 years, Bob was diagnosed with cancer and suffered a painful death. On multiple occasions afterward, Mary Travers thanked me for accommodating her father's needs as his health deteriorated.
For a number of years, I have speculated that if the resumes of all the world's public relations professionals were run through a scanner, employment at Burson-Marsteller would be the most common shared experience. While I am saddened when competent people leave (arguably, we are the most recruited of all the large public relations firms) I take pride in what so many of our alumni/alumnae have accomplished. One-time B-Mers have been CEO of half the top dozen public relations firms and have been the top public relations/communications officer at some 25 FORTUNE 500 companies. Most of the healthcare practices and many public relations staffers at healthcare-related companies received their early training at Burson-Marsteller.
I take particular pride in knowing that B-Mers are so active in relating to their roots. I regularly receive invitations to Burson-Marsteller reunions which are often periodic events in cities where we have offices - New York, Chicago and Washington; London, Frankfurt and Brussels; Hong Kong, Tokyo and Singapore; Toronto, Mexico City and Sao Paulo; Sydney and Melbourne to name a few. They are constantly networking with one another; I'm told it really pays off when looking for a job.
Most of all, I enjoy the e-mails and letters from former colleagues unheard from for decades - expressing happy memories of days past and informing me of their new and better jobs, their association with an important happening and, in one case, winning the lottery!
# # # #
*June 14, The Arts, Page 1.
**Cindy Lauper also was at B-M/NY; she was a receptionist for three weeks at the start of her highly successful career as a singer. 4/5/2006 3:26 AM
Over the past several weeks I have read Pulitzer Prize winner Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals," a captivating account of Abraham Lincoln's relationship with his cabinet during the Civil War years when he was president and commander-in-chief. As many of you likely know, Lincoln appointed his three principal contenders for the Republican nomination to the three most important cabinet positions: State, Treasury and War.
Many Americans - I am one of them - revere Lincoln as our greatest president. Preserving the union was, as some historians argue, an undertaking at least the equal of declaring and winning independence from England and transforming 13 colonies of diverse interests into a United States of America.
We attribute many qualities to Lincoln, perhaps best encapsulated in such references as "Honest Abe" and "Father Abraham." But little has been made of his innate sense of public relations. In August 1858, two years before his surprise nomination for the highest office in the land, Lincoln, a master of the English language though he had never had a day of formal classroom education, expressed the essence of public relations in one of his several debates with his long-time Democrat opponent, Stephen Douglas. Lincoln said:
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed."
Throughout the prosecution of the war between the Union and the Confederacy - a war which claimed more American lives than all other wars in aggregate - Lincoln was frequently assailed for his procrastination in making decisions. The fact is that he was usually quick in his decision making, but cautious in making public what he had decided. He was ever mindful that the public mood would play a decisive role in how well his decisions would be received.
A case in point was his timing in announcing what many believe to be his boldest and most meaningful action: The Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln made his decision to proclaim freedom for slaves in the Confederate States well before mid-1862 and had written several drafts. But the war was going badly for the Union, with one loss after another because, in Lincoln's words, "we were out-generaled" by Robert E. Lee and other Rebel field commanders. Despite anti-slavery support in the North and in some border states, Lincoln knew that only a major Union victory would create an environment that would bring about sufficient public acceptance of his decision to free the slaves. Only after Union forces had decisively won at Antietem in September 1862, would Lincoln issue the proclamation -- five days after the battle, effective January 1, 1863, irrevocable and not negotiable.
At a time when speeches rambled on for up to two or even three hours, Lincoln's intuitive sense was that less could be more. It is perhaps no coincidence that his two most memorable speeches were his shortest: his addresses at Gettysburg and at his second inauguration. At Gettysburg, a new cemetery was being dedicated on the battleground that was both the turning point of the war for the Union and the site of the some of the fiercest fighting for both armies. Lincoln was not the principal speaker; that role was assigned to Edward Everett, one of the nation's most renowned orators. Lincoln was well aware that Everett would speak for at least two hours. He followed Everett with 278-words that have been acclaimed as perhaps the single most meaningful iteration of the American ideal. At his second inauguration on March 4, 1865, the war nearing its end and victory for the Union at hand, Lincoln's objective for the war's aftermath was articulated in these moving words,
"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see that right, let us strive to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have fought the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves and with all nations."
I have long thought the great political leaders were intuitively deeply-invested students of public relations. Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill stand out in my lifetime, as does Martin Luther King. Each of them, in his own style, marshaled the English language to unite their peoples and call for the sacrifice that would be required to assure their continued liberty and freedom. Each had an ingrained sense of timing, knowing when that vast mass of humanity we call the public was ready to react positively when challenged to a specific course of action, including service to the nation that, sorrowfully, sometimes led to the supreme sacrifice.
Certainly, Abraham Lincoln was among such great leaders and I encourage those of you who profess to a career in public relations to know more about him. Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" is a good starting point. She wrote, "Lincoln considered his meetings with the general public his 'public opinion baths.' 'They serve to renew in me a clearer and more vivid image of that great popular assemblage out of which I sprung,' he told a visitor, 'and though they may not be pleasant in all their particulars, their effect, as a whole, is renovating and invigorating to my perceptions of responsibility and duty.'" 2/2/2007 4:45 AM
Public relations was practiced in Boston long before the first publicity firm opened for business there in 1900. What we would nowadays recognize as a public relations campaign whose objective was separating the 13 colonies from England was launched in 1776 - 12 years before the formal Declaration of Independence. Though the term 'public relations' was yet to be coined, the chief public relations officer for that pre-revolutionary undertaking was Samuel Adams, a cousin of John Adams and an all-but-forgotten hero of the American Revolution. His exciting and productive life is the subject of a recent book "Samuel Adams - Father of the American Revolution" by Mark Puls (published by palgrave macmillan) which I commend to my colleagues in the public relations community.
In 1764 the 42 year-old Samuel Adams set into motion a sustained initiative that would result in democratic government as we know it today. Utilizing Boston and other colonial newspapers as well as pamphlets, he called for the formation of a colonial congress to protest Parliament-imposed taxation on colonists and led a successful movement to boycott imported British goods. Recognizing the need for a rallying point, he drafted a statement on colonial rights that was adopted by the Massachusetts legislature.
By 1768 his colonial rights statement was published in England and he organized protests throughout the colonies against the Townshend Acts which increased the number of Crown custom officials and taxed the import of paint, paper, glass and tea. His actions resulted in the British military occupation of Boston which, in 1770, led to an uprising in which five colonists were killed. Adams labeled it the "Boston massacre," later known throughout the colonies as the "horrible" Boston Massacre. Adams' end result was successful: the British lifted the military occupation, but to maintain momentum for independence he began a series of widely-disseminated essays detailing "the cause of American freedom."
In 1772 Adams created what was likely the world's first grass-roots organization which he called "committees of correspondence." Their purpose paralleled today's grass root networks - to maintain a two-way flow of information from the central governing source to and from the outlying citizenry. As a protest against a new tea tax, he orchestrated the Boston Tea Party - a totally contrived event -- and was first to call for establishing what became the Continental Congress, for independence from England and for a Bill of Rights.
When the Revolutionary War began in 1775, Samuel Adams was a ringleader in George Washington's selection as commander-in-chief and a strong proponent of the formal Declaration of Independence in July 1776. Elected to the Continental Congress, he was the strongest supporter of the war with Britain and the fight for liberty.
In today's lexicon, Samuel Adams would likely be described as a "propagandist" -- a role to which he dedicated himself for more than a decade. In actuality, he was much closer to the public relations counseling model envisioned by Edward L. Bernays in the early 1920s. Adams was not only a communicator; his greatest contribution was in impacting policy, in working with the 70 or so Founding Founders in the creation of a new form of government and achieving independence for the 13 colonies. He was both tactical and strategic. Perhaps his greatest contribution was that he is believed to be the first of his coterie who had the vision of a union of the colonies as one united nation; until he came along each of the colonies valued its separate status and rivalry among the colonies was often bitter. In fact, it could be said that Samuel Adams was also pretty good at branding (centuries before the word "brand" took on its present meaning) he came up with the name "United States of America."
Grass roots, the Boston Tea Party, naming what has become one of the world's most powerful nations -- what public relations practitioner wouldn't settle for that?!
# # # #
Note:
My interest in Samuel Adams goes back at least 25 years when the late Scott Cutlip, whom I knew as dean of the schools of communication at the University of Wisconsin and the University of Georgia and, arguably, the most learned person ever in the development and history of public relations as an occupational discipline, once informed me that the real "father of public relations" in the United States was Samuel Adams. Since that time, I have read extensively not only about Samuel Adams but the American Revolution in its totality (even from the British point of view).
Though most of what I have written is derived from the recently-published book by Mark Puls, I have also drawn on other sources. Mark Puls has written several historical works of non-fiction and was on the editorial staff of the Detroit News from 1990 to 2002. -- hb 3/13/2007 11:30 PM
In speeches, articles and interviews over the past 20 years or so, I have bemoaned the use of "communications" as a replacement for public relations. While communications plays an important role in what we public relations professionals do, it is only one aspect of our job. Equally, if not more important, we have an overall responsibility for advising on policies and actions that reconcile the objectives of our clients and employers with the public interest. No one put it better than Edward L. Bernays when he wrote "we interpret the corporation to the public and we interpret the public to the corporation."
As I have related on numerous occasions, "communications" began to replace "public relations" in 1975 - a fall out of Watergate and the circumstances that caused Richard Nixon to resign as President. Throughout the Watergate tapes, which recorded all Oval Office conversations, public relations was spoken of perjoratively. When stumped with a situation President Nixon and his aides found difficult to explain, the President ended the discussion with something like "we'll have to let the PR guys handle that one" or "let's PR it." Public relations and PR took on a malodorous connotation.
Corporate public relations officers reacted by changing their titles - from "Vice President - Public Relations" to "Vice President - Communications." One need only compare pre-1974 listings of public relations officers with post-1975 listings. The earlier lists were preponderantly "Public Relations"; the later lists predominantly "Communications."
To be sure, many corporate CEO's welcomed the change. In those days (even as today), not all CEO's understood the full scope of public relations. Many failed to recognize that public relations has two components: the first, advice and counsel on how specific audiences could be expected to react to corporate policy or action; the second, communicating to the public (today we call it "transparency"). To them, "communications" was tangible; "public relations" was abstract.
One of my principal concerns about substituting "communications" for "public relations" is its potential to diminish our role in the corporate hierarchy. Although many CEOs and other senior executives recognize the full scope of the public relations function and its influence on corporate reputation, some still believe the only function of the Chief Communications Officer is media relations (admittedly. a not unimportant role!). My expectation (and fear) is that they will turn to others in the executive hierarchy for public relations advice and counsel - the strategic input that helps shape policy and the communications message. Already, we find Big Four auditing firms and management consultants offering specialist advice on corporate reputation, social responsibility and customer service.
This comes at a time when wise and experienced public relations advice and counsel has never been so needed by large corporations. Public attitudes toward corporations are at a low level, while corporate reputation has become a critical differentiator to customers, investors, employees and other significant stakeholders. 3/28/2007 3:30 AM
Today's challenge for global corporations and their CEO's, especially those of U.S. origin, is finding safe harbor from an amalgamation of circumstances that are the equivalent of a perfect storm.
Consider the following:
-
At no time in more than two centuries of nationhood have overseas public attitudes toward the United States been at so low a level. This lack of favor has perpetuated for five years, with the likelihood it will not soon abate. This has special meaning for any company depending on overseas markets for a large portion of its revenues.
-
At no time since corporations came into being have they and their CEO's been held in such low esteem by the American public. The reasons are well documented -- starting with the misdeeds of Enron, WorldCom, Tyco et al and the more recent public perception of over-compensated chief executives. Regulatory and legislative oversight is sure to accelerate with the Democrat-majority Congress and from major investors like public pension funds.
-
Modern technology now disseminates news more rapidly, in greater depth and to a larger more diverse audience. Today's 24-hour news cycle works at the speed of light, recognizing no national boundaries, no oceans, and non-discriminating on the receiving end. This creates a "time frame compression" that demands immediate response. Even the largest corporations are usually ill-equipped to respond as quickly as necessary.
-
Technology also makes any computer owner a potential news source -- at minimal cost and with the capability to reach thousands, even millions, of readers without either editorial oversight or accountability. Reaction to corporate news by interested stakeholders can be immediate; failure to respond in real time can quickly result in an erosion of reputation.
-
Opinion surveys demonstrate that American consumers, from the most sophisticated b-to-b purchasing agents to soccer moms buying soda pop, are knowledgeable about the reputation of the company behind the brand. As quality and price differentiation between products narrows (think private brands), the manufacturer's or marketer's reputation takes on greater significance in the purchasing decision.
-
The CEO is under escalating scrutiny -- by traditional stakeholders like the investment community, by intrusive reporters and editors, by boards of directors, law-enforcement officers and self-appointed "watch dogs" and even by employees. Examples of CEO downfalls originating with a board member reading critical articles in major business media abound. On the other end of the hierarchal spectrum, employees are now empowered to express themselves (think employee or retiree-generated websites in plant communities). Stakeholders nowadays insist that "talking the talk" is not good enough; they're insisting on "walking the walk."
* * * *
Given the present business environment, how should the global corporation prepare itself to gain the public acceptance needed to accomplish its menu of corporate objectives -- rewards to investors, a good work environment, satisfied customers and a reputation for being a good corporate citizen or having "a good name."
These are among the essential elements that can be embraced to manage this situation:
-
A commitment at the highest levels of corporate management/governance. Both CEO and board of directors must understand and support the thesis, as articulated by an early AT&T CEO, that the modern corporation exists by public sufferance of its actions. This is perhaps more applicable today than when communicated to AT&T managers and employees some 80 years ago. By both word and deed, the CEO must demonstrate his/her support for the function that oversees corporate reputation. Indeed, it should be the responsibility of a standing board committee that makes periodic audits and evaluation.
-
Acceptance that the public relations function is more than "corporate communications." During the past 20 years or so, "communications" has been used as a descriptor for "public relations." This has tended to debase the totality of what the corporate public relations function entails, i.e., working with senior management developing policies and decisions that reconcile corporate goals with public expectations and public acceptance AND communicating policies, decisions and actions arising there from to relevant stakeholders. A simple statement of the process is "Public relations is doing good and getting credit for it." A best practice for achieving such a result calls for the senior public relations/communications officer to report directly to the CEO and be a member of the management/operation committee. As one wise CEO put it, "It is unrealistic to expect superior performance unless the senior public relations officer is present for the take-offs as well as for the landings."
-
Global functional responsibility. Few would question the need for a company to speak with a single voice. With multiple business units and geographical spread, obstacles to "speaking with a single voice" have grown. Companies organized regionally, i.e. the Americas, Europe-Middle East-Africa, Asia-Pacific, or those whose business units have considerable autonomy, have massive communications challenges. In most corporations, finance and legal have overcome these obstacles by centralizing functional responsibility at the corporate level. This happened because keeping track of the money and operating within the law were always recognized as bed rock issues. Nowadays, many corporations realize that news, especially bad news, is now also a bed rock issue. Modern technology has escalated communications to a comparable status because of its potential to impact reputation suddenly and adversely.
-
Establish an effective global infrastructure. At a time when foreign earnings of many corporations exceed home market earnings, overseas staffing (both headcount and experience level) and budgeting for public relations/ communications are usually disproportionately deficient. Many corporations fail to recognize that the cost per unit of communications is in inverse ratio to the population of the country — even more so when a country has multiple languages. It boils down to this: if reputation is important, it is imperative that corporations prepare themselves with both people and equipment that can transmit information as efficiently as the news media reporting on their actions. And this must be done both globally and within each country where there's a corporate footprint.
-
Best practice in retention of public relations firms vis a vis building large internal staffs is that it is not a matter of one or the other. Rather, it is the effective combination of internal staff and public relations firm support. But no single formula fits all situations. Instead, it requires an amalgamation of internal and external resources to provide the level of service based on needs. Although admittedly self-serving, we contend that the large global corporation is best served by supplementing its internal staff working with a minimum number of public relations firms and that the hiring decision for public relations firms be centralized. A not insignificant reason for limiting the number of public relations firms is that the larger the client relationship in terms of revenues, the greater attention it receives (something true of all service businesses). And the job of managing multiple public relations firms is minimized.
-
Pro-active vs. re-active. There should be no conflict between pro-active and re-active initiatives. Both have their place. However, the emphasis in recent years has been on reacting to agendas of others (largely media, but sometimes the attorney general!) and responding to a fixed agenda such as reporting and commenting on earnings, new products, new appointments and myriad subjects raised by reporters interested in a specific issue or story. Few corporations today have their own active agenda for expending resources to achieve their own initiatives, objectives, i.e., "this is how we are perceived today, this is how we want to be perceived in three years hence." This represents a fertile area for public relations firm involvement.
* * * *
What's the net/net?
Simply this: For the first time the business environment is forcing CEOs to confront issues and challenges that are within the rubric of public relations. To be sure, other disciplines will claim them — law firms, the Big Four audit firms, management consultants. But the fact is that these are public relations/communications issues — and they will have a long shelf life.
Never has public relations been so critical to restoring the good name not only for business enterprises but also many other societal institutions on which we depend and want to trust. |
|
|
|
|