|
6/5/2009 6:13 PM
The General Motors bankruptcy has a special poignancy for me. By my reckoning, our landing General Motors as a client in 1970 was one of the two most defining moments in Burson-Marsteller’s 56-year history.* It was the catalyst for our extraordinary growth during the decade of the 70s -- from $5.2 million to $35.1 million – and even beyond. Its impact on making us a major “player” in the world of public relations consulting firms was enormous.
It’s hard for those of you who did not actually experience the General Motors presence during the half century starting in the 1930s to appreciate its enormity as a societal force. The world’s largest and most profitable corporation, it was the world’s largest private sector employer – at its peak 600 thousand. Counting dealers and major supplier employees engaged on GM business, the number approached two million. One of every 100 Americans depended on General Motors for a living.
General Motors chose Burson-Marsteller as public relations advisers after a Congressional hearing that excoriated management for hiring a private investigator to shadow consumer activist Ralph Nader. Nader’s hyper-critical book, “Unsafe at Any Speed,” hammered the Chevrolet Corsair, a new model heavily promoted by GM, as well as the industry’s attention to driver and passenger safety. Public outcry condemning the invasion of Nader’s privacy led to the formation of a board committee on public policy and social responsibility. One of its first acts was to order the CEO to engage independent public relations counsel.
As the leading firm specializing in business-to-business clients, we had GM’s Electro-Motive Division, the world’s largest manufacturer of locomotives, as a client We were GM’s only public relations firm, and I had worked with Tony DeLorenzo, their long-time corporate chief public relations officer. In late June (1970) Tony informed me of GM’s intention to hire a firm to advise senior management on corporate policy matters and that Burson-Marsteller would be one of three firms they would consider.
Our competition was Hill & Knowlton and Carl Byoir Associates, then the two largest and most highly regarded firms, each serving numerous major corporate clients. My principal associate, Buck Buchwald, and I assumed our being on the short list was more a factor of friendship than as a serious contender. The selection would be based on discussions with GM management about their perception by important stakeholders, i.e. no formal presentations.
Although GM was respected as the corporate world’s biggest and best, it was also generally regarded as arrogant, infallible, inflexible and a driver of hard bargains with dealers and suppliers. It was seen to be high-handed with media (after the Wall Street Journal published a drawing of a new model before its formal release, GM cancelled its advertising). Since we both felt we had little to lose, Buck and I decided to be totally straightforward in disclosing what we learned from talking with a small sampling of dealers, suppliers and automotive reporters.
In a casual setting in the then-new General Motors Building overlooking the Plaza Hotel and Central Park, we met with Oscar Lundeen, number two in the GM management hierarchy and Tony DeLorenzo. For the better part of two hours, we shared our hand-written verbatims expressing the antagonistic and deep-seated feelings of dealers, suppliers and reporters. Our audience of two were rapt listeners (actually DeLorenzo had a strong inkling of what we would say and he didn’t dissuade us from pursuing what we assumed would be a suicidal course of action). Mr. Lundeen’s first comment was along the lines of “you’re telling us that our PR is not working,” a statement that shook up my friend and fellow-public relations professional Tony DeLorenzo (I could tell by the look in his eyes that I had better have a good answer; he was the person who signed off on our invoices!).
My response was along the lines that, in a sense, it was a breakdown in the public relations process, but “not at the level of your public relations staff.” Rather, I explained that any public relations outcome is based on two components. First – where General Motors is failing – is behavior and behavior is a factor of policy – policy set by senior management often without professional public relations input. The second is communications – at which I thought General Motors is superb. After being graciously thanked for our input, Buck and I, on the return walk to our office, commiserated with one another by agreeing we weren’t going to get the business regardless of what we said.
An hour or so later, the telephone rang; it was Tony DeLorenzo. His first words were “Oscar thinks Jim Roche should hear what you and Buck told us.” Roche was GM’s chief executive officer. Even though we would meet with GM’s CEO, we still were dubious that we were a serious contender. Mr. Roche was a good listener, but palpably more aggressive defending GM actions as voiced by those we interviewed. At the least, he agreed that the behavior of General Motors was a misunderstood – meaning that his public relations department was not communicating the essence of the company and what it stood for.
Because General Motors became the “target” for labor negotiations with the United Auto Workers, the decision on hiring a public relations firm went on the back burner. Though DeLorenzo and I talked regularly by telephone, it was late November when he called to inquire if I would be in my office the following Tuesday. After my affirmative reply, he said “Oscar would like to see where you live when he’s in New York for our next board meeting.” Though I didn’t ask him directly, I knew the game was over and we had won; it was simply inconceivable to me that the second ranking officer at General Motors would take time to visit the offices of three public relations firms.
Buck and I worked the account in tandem. Our frequent presence on the 14th floor of the General Motors Building on Detroit’s Grand Avenue was a heady experience. GM’s internal public relations staff was superbly qualified, though not always heeded by corporate management. The fact is that for many years GM management was more adept at making money than at making automobiles the American public wanted. Smart and hard-working, they failed to recognize the competitive potential of Japanese car makers, especially on how quickly they could establish a dealer organization capable of delivering coast-to-coast service. Also, few of their new models were really new; mainly they were enhancements of existing models. Having operated in a protected market for so many years, General Motors, like its other U.S. counterparts, lost sight of what its customers wanted in an automobile. GM’s share of market peaked in 1974 at 54 per cent. In each succeeding decade it dropped approximately ten percentage points and is now in the low 20s.
But the impact on us – with our existing clients and in new business -- was palpable. Even though neither we nor our new client issued a news release on our appointment, for the better part of the year our winning the GM account was the talk of the public relations community. Our corporate practice expanded at least three-fold as new clients joined our roster. The topic at most first meetings with companies interested in our services was how life was lived at General Motors.**
Our relationship with General Motors ended in 1981 at our initiative. We had joined forces with Young & Rubicam two years earlier. Ford’s Lincoln-Mercury Division was a major Y&R client. On the GM side of the equation, our third CEO, the affable and effective Tom Murphy, had retired. Even more significantly, so had our friend and mentor, the unforgettable Tony DeLorenzo. Though our GM association had been “grand-fathered” after our merger with Y&R, our B-M management team thought it made good long-term business sense to seek Ford as a client in tandem with our parent company.
Though somewhat diminished in comparison to its glory years, General Motors was still a company to be reckoned with. It would have been considered insane to consider it a candidate for bankruptcy a quarter century later. But, as in all of life, “stuff” happens to corporations, for the better and for the worse.*** Only one of the original 30 companies on the Dow Jones Industrial Index remains about a century later.
* The most defining event in the history of Burson-Marsteller was establishing an overseas office (Geneva, Switzerland) in 1961.
** At that time, CEOs played a significant role in the selection of public relations firms.
*** Only one of the original 30 companies comprising the Dow Jones Industrial Index remains today, 113 years later. It is General Electric. 5/20/2009 12:02 PM
For a good part of my business life I have made two or three visits a year both in this country and when traveling abroad to speak to students and faculty at colleges of communications and graduate schools of business. My two most recent talks were at Boston University and City University of New York (CUNY). At both, the Q&A portion of my presentation was palpably more serious, the questions more purposeful, than usual. The top-of-mind topic for most students was how to find a job.
As I parried their questions, the thought crossed my mind that members of the class of 2009, mostly age 22, were never aware of a serious downturn in the economy. Barely 13 years old when the Silicon Valley bubble burst, they were toddlers when the economy bottomed out in the early 90s. Throughout their pre-adult life they knew and experienced only the showy extravagance and excessive consumption as real estate prices and credit card debt soared and jobs were there for the asking.
Expecting magic answers on how to get a job in public relations, I could assure them only that I was confident in believing that the value of public relations/communications as a business discipline was greater today than ever and its future even more so. When pressed with questions demanding a more specific response, I told them that those best at networking were the ones most likely to find a job. I pointed out that more than half the staff at Burson-Marsteller were first introduced to the firm by friends and families and neighbors and acquaintances of employees, clients, media representatives and others who had a “connection.” This is not an unusual occurrence at professional service businesses.
This piece of advice was in line with my answer to my most-often-asked question by students: “what should I be doing now to improve my chances of getting a job in public relations?” My response, developed after years of pondering the question, was “start now building a network of friends and colleagues whom you expect to be in positions of influence or awareness.” Nowadays, a typical college graduating class includes a likely governor or senator, several future entrepreneurs, numerous lawyers and physicians and college professors with broad acquaintanceships, dozens of business leaders who influence the hiring process.
But I admonish them that networking is more complicated than simply knowing people. Networking takes both time and effort. Like getting together for a beer, e-mailing or otherwise communicating, exploring mutual interests like hiking or watching football. I also shared an observation learned through experience that friendships established early in life, say during high school of college, are the most lasting, the most likely to deliver when times are toughest.
Another bit of advice I have given students through the years has to do with writing. There’s not much argument that writing quality has been diminishing for at least half a century (some say since the advent of television, which absorbed much of the time once devoted to reading). The present array of more sophisticated devices that claim the time and attention of the young – cell phones, i-Pods, text messaging and other computer-driven recreations – can only be expected to further reduce time available for serious reading and writing. Accordingly, the young job seeker who demonstrates writing skills is immediately differentiated from others competing for jobs.
But despite the miseries that await the class of 2009 in their quest for employment, I take a small measure of comfort in observing that the current recession – the most severe since the Great Depression of the 1930s – has had a less adverse effect on public relations employment than the ten or twelve previous recessions that coincide with my business career. Many public relations firms have trimmed their staffs, but usually not to the degree of past recessions. Save such industries as financial services, real estate and automobiles, corporations have not cut and slashed staff and budgets to the same extent as in past recessions.
There are, I believe, two reasons.
The first is the maturation and, with it, the appreciation of public relations by clients and employers as a valued business discipline. At this time of major turbulence in how messages are communicated to target audiences, public relations has proven itself to be agile, flexible, creative and comprehensive in the sense that it is without boundaries in its scope and reach.
The second is the impact of digital communications. Institutionalizing digital as a communications medium is still a work in progress. Corporations, indeed all societal entities, are at different levels of experimentation and sophistication in both the content and the context of messages to employees, customers and other significant audiences. Despite the recession, the use of digital is growing, albeit in some areas at slower rates than in previous years.
But little of this serves the purpose of those young women and men seeking entry level jobs in public relations. Sadly, we will lose many of them to other disciplines. But I suspect those most committed to public relations will achieve their job-hunting objective as the economic environment returns to normality. 3/31/2009 4:32 PM
Not too many years ago, a negative article in a small newspaper or on one of the cable news programs at a non-peak news hour usually elicited a “who cares” shrug of the shoulders and life moved on.
But not now. A posting of that once obscure clipping or that 50 seconds of damaging reportage on YouTube or Twitter multiplies its audience by a magnitude of ten or more. A thousand readers or viewers can easily become more than a million.
That’s not all. When posted on a mega-viewed website the negative message gains credibility. Being there implies a trusted third party endorsement; a respected outlet, in effect, vouched for the content and has tacitly agreed it deserves a wider audience than the local hometown newspaper or cable news outlet.
The “who cares” attitude can no longer pertain. Depending on the content, a full-blown crisis may be in the making – just as likely to happen at midnight as at mid-day and any place on earth. YouTube and Twitter are as easily accessed from Malaysia or Moscow as from Memphis or Manhattan.
Media relations has become a 24/7 job. Relaxing after the 11 o’clock edition has gone to press and the airing of the 10 o’clock late news is now out the window. But short of the Pentagon and State Department, few institutions in our society are prepared to respond to this new breaking news paradigm.
Nor is technology the only villain in today’s news breaking scenario. One must also acknowledge the growing number of insider leaks -- news emanating from “an unidentified news source whose career would be jeopardized” if named. Insiders leaking news has become part of today’s business ethos and mass media make it easy for leakers to reach them and their ever-growing audiences. Remember always that they thrive on ears, eyeballs and clicks.
There’s no “one fits all” solution to this cancerous phenomenon of leaked information and media’s craving to being first with the news. We now live in a “gotcha” age fueled by technology and people who get their kicks demonstrating they’re in the know. It’s unrealistic to think leaking by employees and informed outside parties is a here-today gone-tomorrow fad.
Realistically, companies vary in their vulnerability – largely a factor of the degree of public interest in a company or industry and the content of the leak (sex and misdeeds like theft and fraud always rank high with listeners and readers). The remedy is, first, to make media relations operative 24/7, i.e. literally around-the-clock staffing. It also takes a constantly updated data bank with responses to any and all issues, real and imagined. Most of all, it takes a management commitment to transparency and the will to “tell all” before it’s discovered by an investigative reporter who flushes it out dribble by dribble.
More CEOs should think of media relations as risk management.
3/23/2009 10:34 AM
Few people can relate to a million of anything, especially dollars.
Even fewer to a billion.
A trillion? Here's a clue:
One million seconds equals 11 1/2 days.
One billion seconds equals 31.7 years.
One trillion seconds equals 31,700 years. 2/3/2009 10:28 PM
Now it’s Citigroup that’s responding to public – to be more accurate, media and political – wrath focused on the bank’s commitment to spend $20 million a year for the next 20 years to name the new New York Mets stadium. Having taken taxpayer money to preserve its solvency, Citigroup is said to be renegotiating its Citi Stadium deal barely two months before the opening of the 2009 Major League Baseball season.
This follows on the heels of public criticism of Bank of America’s sponsoring a well-attended extravaganza for customers, present and prospective, at the Super Bowl in Tampa. Like Citigroup, BofA has also partaken of taxpayer money. And AIG, another recipient, continues to be the poster corporation for misuse of, you guessed it, taxpayer money, for spending several hundred thousand dollars on “lavish” hospitality, including spa appointments, benefiting members of its marketing organization.
True enough, were taxpayer money not involved, there would be no outcry. But even with taxpayer money, which each of the recipients expects to repay, should there have been so strident a backlash and how, really, did the outcry arise?
There’s little evidence that its genesis was Joe Public. Rather, Joe Public was incited by “gotcha” mentality stories emanating from the media, both traditional and the now well-established web news hawkers who play the “gotcha” game even more ardently than their print and electronic counterparts. Legislators and other government officials were quick with condemning sound bite epithets.
That said, those of us engaged in marketing communications should be asking ourselves the reason for so strident a backlash. After all, the incidents cited were tested, legitimate and productive marketing practices known to produce a return on money invested in them. If such marketing tactics are throttled, how will taxpayer-funded institutions earn the revenues needed to repay the government? And will these troubled financial institutions feel restrained advertising in either traditional or new media or both?
The problem is that many of the world’s movers and shakers, well-educated and in positions of influence, have somehow developed the notion that corporate sponsored meetings in nice surroundings are, per se, wasteful extravagance. They don’t recognize the value in terms of motivating a sales force or recognizing customer loyalty or even informing the media about new products, new services or upcoming television programming and movies.
It’s not to be denied these now-debased practices played a role in the earlier success of many of the troubled businesses. First-hand experience has shown me that corporations don’t embrace sponsorships or host gatherings at attractive venues without serious thought and deliberation. The companies I have worked with have wanted to know the pay-off before they spend their money. It’s also been evident that few employees regard a weekend sales meeting at even the toniest of venues as a free vacation, a Jack Nicklaus golf course notwithstanding. In effect, they do it for the stockholders – even when much of the stock is held in the collective name of the taxpayers.
Obviously there’s been a breakdown in communications. Obviously media and legislators/regulators don’t appreciative the value of initiatives that recognize, reward and motivate corporate stakeholders. It’s just as obvious that corporations, are pragmatic; few spend money on which there is no return. Well-managed and profitable corporations like Nike and Accenture don’t dish out big bucks to Tiger Woods because he’s a great golfer and a nice guy. He earns his mega-bucks by motivating customers to buy products and services associated with his name.
It serves no useful purpose when Joe Public is agitated by “gotcha” stories thrashing productive marketing initiatives that differentiate one product from another and create customer awareness and preference. Therefore, it seems to me that “we in the business” must work harder and more effectively to establish the value of marketing initiatives we often propose to our clients. Our clients already “get it” – they know the value of such doings; otherwise they wouldn’t be shelling out the dough. It’s the media and the Washington legislator/regulatory community we must reach with a positive and compelling story backed by empirical evidence. And we should get on with the job with all deliberate speed.
Harold Burson
February 2, 2009 1/15/2009 8:22 PM
Many of those who reached adulthood during the past two decades take for granted the national holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr., whose “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial on August 23, 1963 symbolizes the achievement by African-Americans of civil rights commitments set forth in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Actually, it took time and a lot of hard work for Congress to pass legislation recognizing Dr. King’s leadership following his assassination on April 4, 1968, regrettably, in my home town, Memphis, which now memorializes him with a Civil Rights Museum. The first bill to do so was introduced soon after his death; it went nowhere despite much public sentiment favoring setting aside a day to honor not only Dr. King but the granting of rights promised almost two centuries earlier to a segment of our population that, through the years, varied from 12 to almost 20 percent.
Illinois – the state that has had, perhaps coincidentally, so great a role in the African-American civil rights saga – was the first to make Martin Luther King Day a state holiday. Fifteen years later, Congress passed legislation creating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, effective in 1986 and subject to acceptance by each of the states. Originally designated for January 15, Dr. King’s birthday, Congress changed the actual day to the third Monday in January to conform to such other national holidays as President’s Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day and Veterans Day.
Gradually, the states followed the lead of Illinois and in 1993, for the first time, all 50 states observed MLK Day in some format, sometimes under a different name and not always as a paid state holiday. Seven years later, in 2000, Utah became the last state to recognize Martin Luther King Day by renaming its Human Rights Day, and South Carolina was the last state to make it a paid holiday.
During the slow and tedious process, there was only one major glitch. After the Arizona legislature passed enabling legislation, it was rescinded by a newly-elected governor in 1987, setting off all manner of boycotts. The most significant was by the National Football League which had scheduled the 1993 Super Bowl in Phoenix; in protest, the championship game was moved to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena. In a referendum, Arizona citizens later voted in favor of the holiday and the NFL awarded the Super Bowl Game to Tempe in 1996.
As evidenced by our archives, we at Burson-Marsteller played a small part in gaining state and private industry acceptance of the Federal mandate. The original Congressional legislation established a Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission to implement the initiative, and the CEO of our client, DuPont, Edward G. Jefferson, was chosen to represent the corporate community. Ed Jefferson asked for our support and our Washington office promptly arranged for Mrs. Coretta Scott King, the widow of Dr. King and head of the King Center and King Foundation to reach out to the Washington press corps with a speech at the National Press Club. A letter from Mrs. King dating back to 1985 tells the story. We were one of many in the business community to support the Commission.
Under any circumstances this is a story worth telling. It is especially timely that it be told this week – the week in which our 44th president will be inaugurated. After all, way back in August 1963 at the Lincoln Monument on The Mall in Washington, for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., prime mover of the 20th century civil rights mover and Nobel laureate, his was not so wild a dream.
# # # #
Harold Burson
January 16, 2009 12/14/2008 5:14 PM
At a time when the holiday spirit and the oncoming dawn of a new year should bring an immersion of happiness and glee to those of us with long memories, for the past 11 years we at Burson-Marsteller have been saddened with the turning of the calendar page to December 10. That was the date in 1994 – a Saturday never to be forgotten by those who experienced it – when one of the best of our best, Tom Mosser, was murdered opening a package containing an exploding bomb sent by a serial killer madman known as the Unabomber.
Tom lived almost exactly half his 50 years at Burson-Marsteller, joining us in 1970 after serving as aide to the admiral commanding the U.S. fleet in Vietnam waters. By 1983 he managed our flagship office in New York; by 1987 he managed all U.S. operations. Early in 1994, Tom went to Young & Rubicam, our then-parent company, as assistant to CEO Peter Georgescu. Nine days before his untimely death, he was named executive vice president/general manager, Y&R’s second ranking executive.
The week following Tom’s death was a time of anguished mourning across the Burson-Marsteller firmament, especially in New York. More than 600 attended his funeral in New Jersey, many asking themselves and others “why Tom?” A U.S. honor guard saluted his naval service as a lieutenant, senior grade. (A holdover from his time in the navy was that he always addressed me as “Sir” even despite my frequently pleading that my military status was that of an enlisted man). A week later, Tom’s B-M colleagues, many traveling from afar, attended a somber memorial service in a church near our office.
Tom’s career path was rocket-like. After just a few years, he was the office’s “go to/can do” person. As he began to take on responsibility, first as client leader on our first major consumer account (Burger King) and then as a group vice president, Tom was the manager most of our people wanted to have as a boss. They knew that working for Tom meant learning from a master and moving up the organizational ladder faster. They knew he was going places and they wanted to be on the ride with him, a no-nonsense leader totally dedicated to serving clients. (Once Tom was assigned to a client, it was near impossible to get them to accept any other, no matter how experienced or professional.) What was best for the company was the North Star course from which he never deviated.
There are at least two theories on why the Unabomber singled out Tom to receive his lethal package, neither ever proven. One is that he usually mailed his home-made bombs to individuals whose names or addresses included a reference to trees (the Mossers lived on Aspen Drive). The other is that of the four senior Burson-Marsteller executives in “Who’s Who,” only Tom’s listed his home address. (I have never ever forgotten that I, in terms of public visibility, would have been a more representative target.)
It is of little comfort to those of us who knew and loved Tom Mosser that the Unabomber, after a bombing spree lasting 17 years and causing three deaths and 29 injuries, many disabling, has been serving a solitary confinement lifetime sentence without probation in a Federal prison the past 10 years.
As for Tom, I believe my words at his funeral service still hold: “Tom would have wanted us to commit our energies to celebrating his life – yes, to celebrating his life – rather than to mourning his death” – difficult though it be for us who survived him.
To a person, we have for long shared the grief visited upon his family – especially at this time of the year when daylight is at its shortest.
# # #
Harold Burson
December 15, 2008 12/1/2008 6:45 PM
Until my recent two-week visit to Asia, I had never been absent from the United States on the day of a Presidential election.* I was in Hong Kong fulfilling a pre-arranged schedule that included talks with a former CEO of our Asia region (a non-American), members of our B-M/Hong Kong staff (almost exclusively Chinese) and a visit to my long-time tailor in the Mandarin Hotel. Late afternoon, I departed for Tokyo and arrived at my hotel, the New Otani, about the time election results started to come in.
The subject topmost on the minds of my Asian colleagues and friends – both in Hong Kong and Tokyo, and later in Shanghai and Beijing, centered on the election. It was obvious at each of my destinations that Barak Obama was “their” candidate and, upon knowing the election results, America seemed to have moved several notches higher in their esteem.
I think their response was based on two factors – and I am not certain which was the more compelling. The first was their near certainty that U.S. foreign policy would change, in their view for the better, in an Obama administration. They felt the U.S. would re-assume its leadership position in global institutions and initiatives and that this would be a good thing for the world. The second was their obvious pride that a “person of color” had been elected president of the United States. What I was hearing -- from non-Americans -- in those post election days was that America had, after some 230 years, fulfilled the promises set forth in its Declaration of Independence and its preamble to the Constitution. Once again, I was reminded of the genius of our Founding Fathers in establishing what our greatest president described as a a nation “by the people, of the people and for the people.”
The purpose of my Asian visit was two-fold: the most pressing was an invitation to address the International Public Relations Association (IPRA) World Congress in Beijing. I took the occasion to talk about “The Corporation, Social Responsibility and Public Relations.” In brief, I expressed my view that a corporation’s first duty is to behave appropriately and make a profit, and that if it fails in those objectives, it can never hope to be regarded as a socially responsible corporation. I also gave my description of a corporation’s chief public relations/ communications officer’s four principal duties: 1) corporate sensor (an early warning role on social or other change that can affect business); 2) corporate conscience; 3) corporate communicator; and 4) corporate monitor (to make certain that the business lives up to its commitments).**
The second reason for my visit was of a more nostalgic and ceremonial nature. This year, 2008, is the 35th anniversary of Burson-Marsteller in Asia where, in 1973, we established four offices: Hong Kong, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Tokyo. Since then, we have added offices in China (1985), Korea (1988), Indonesia (1995) and India (2003). India today represents our second largest staff concentration; China our third. Save one (Korea), each Burson-Marsteller office in Asia is headed by a local national and the staff in each office is near totally local nationals. It took us more than 25 years to achieve that objective.
In Beijing and Shanghai, we brought together former B-M professionals (we identify ourselves as B-Mers) who had moved on to other pursuits. About 75 showed up in Beijing, 50 in Shanghai. Old friendships were renewed, new networking opportunities were established. For most, their jobs at Burson-Marsteller was their first in public relations.
At the IPRA Congress, I renewed a friendship with a retired high ranking Chinese diplomat who spent almost ten years in the U.S. as China’s ambassador to the United Nations and then to the United States. In a one-on-one discussion about the global economic crisis, he made the cogent observation “from a political philosophy standpoint, your country is getting more like ours, and our country is getting more like yours.” I have been thinking about what he said ever since.
On a personal note, I did something I should have done years ago: I stopped to smell the roses (an admonition -- “Stop to smell the roses” – some 40 years ago from the lips of the golf great Walter Hagen). The occasion was my first visit to Kyoto, something I should have done earlier but never got around to in any of my previous 30 visits to Japan. My guide was my esteemed colleague at B-M/Tokyo, Tsuyoshi Takemura, whose early life was spent in Kyoto. The ancient capital city of Japan is in an amazing state of preservation with buildings dating back to the 8th and 11th centuries. The tour and the Bullet Train ride were worth the wait!
What is the message I want to convey with all of the above: Stop and smell the roses.
Harold Burson
December 1, 2008
* This is not a factual statement. I was also absent from the United States for my first vote in November 1944. I was in Vise, Belgium with an engineer combat group practicing Rhine River crossings on the Meuse River. I voted by absentee ballot (for Franklin D. Roosevelt).
** For a copy of this speech, click here. 10/26/2008 9:17 PM
About a dozen years ago, one of my most intelligent decisions was hiring a part-time professional archivist to preserve the historical record of a public relations firm which has thrived beyond my wildest dreams. The archive is in two parts: 1) The Burson-Marsteller Archive and 2) The Harold Burson Archive. I have made a commitment and the Boston University School of Communication has accepted that it will be the final repository of my professional and personal papers.
Knowing my interest in the current financial crisis, our archivist, Deborah Shea, of the archive specialists The Winthrop Group Inc., one day recently called to my attention a document I had written in April 1963, about an earlier financial crisis that involved public relations. It was one of a series of monthly papers I wrote for internal distribution under the general heading “on the subject of PUBLIC RELATIONS.”
The document for speaks for itself. It is as topical today as when it was written 35 years ago. One caveat: in 1963, few women were in corporate public relations. Hence, the now archaic reference to the male gender.
On the subject of PUBLIC RELATIONS
Number 14
Financial Public Relations… A Matter of Principle
A couple of weeks ago, the Securities & Exchange Commission reported to Congress on its “Special Study of the Securities Markets.” Of the initial 1600-page portion, 84 pages were devoted to activities relating to the dissemination of corporate financial information and their effect on the securities markets.
Although highlighting the sensational, the SEC report seems to be a reasonable statement of some of the public relations malpractices that have particular application to the rise and fall of stock values. Limited recognition is given to the “many” companies and their “publicity agents” who conduct their activities “with restraint and propriety.” But the over-all effect is that some few public relations practitioners have used their special positions in a manner not in the best interests of the investing community – and in a way that tends to undermine public confidence in the securities market. Another certain effect is that the report casts suspicion the public relations function itself.
EXAMPLE: One public relations firm (once well-known, now out of business) took its fee in stock. An intensive program to puff up the stock price followed. The president of the public relations firm sold his stock at a high price which he worked hard to inflate – not always by depending on facts. Soon, the price of the stock was back to where it should have been.
EXAMPLE: One public relations man distributed at least one news release fabricated totally from thin air. It reported the construction of a new plant in Europe for a client company; there was no such plant. The purpose of the release was to indicate corporate activity with the objective, assumedly, of running up the price of the stock.
Nor are public relations men the only ones cited.
EXAMPLE: The business editor of one of our leading news magazines engaged in the practice of doing articles on relatively obscure companies, making sure to buy substantial blocks (up to 20,000 shares) of the company’s stock prior to the publication of the article. Shortly after the article appeared – and the stock increased in value – he sold. He is no longer with the news magazine.
On the basis of present statutes, none of these actions seems to be illegal. SEC legislation covers the acts of brokers and underwriters; it covers corporate officers privileged to have “inside” information; it covers writers of investment advisory letters and services. But the actions of the public relations man are immune; at the present time, his own inner sense of morality, of what is right and what is wrong, is his only restraint.
The SEC report to Congress suggests “a statute providing criminal sanctions and civil liability for intentional or reckless dissemination of false and misleading statements, including forecasts unwarranted by existing circumstances.”
***
Some public relations people – ethical and honorable – are skeptical of legislation on the subject. The editor of PUBLIC RELATIONS NEWS has said the effect of such a law will be that “much valuable corporate publicity will be withheld and innocent PR directors or counsel might conceivably be jailed for having participated in releasing prognoses which seemed reasonable at the time they did so.”
No one goes out of his way to seek government regulation nowadays. On the other hand, it seems to me that some form of restraint is necessary to constrain the actions of that fraction of a percentage point always ready – in fact seeking – the angles that will produce a fast buck. At the least, I believe public relations men working in the frequently privileged financial area should be subject to the same restrictions – legal, as well as moral – as the corporate officers who are our clients.
The principle, it seems to me, is clear. The detail of specific legislation is another matter. Certainly, it is neither to our advantage as public relations people nor to the advantage of the investing public to have legislation so vague that it could bring about the result expressed in PUBLIC RELATIONS NEWS. Yet, none will disagree that someone would be able to deal with the situations cited in the SEC report. With regret, I submit self-regulation is not the answer.
***
We assist corporate management in the preparation of annual reports (for 1962, eight of them). We help prepare quarterly earnings statements and other shareholder communications throughout the year. We prepare and distribute news releases on sales and earnings, corporate acquisitions, new financing and a host of other subjects that make us privy to a company’s inner-most secrets.
We have been privileged to have this information and to work so closely with client managements for two reasons: we are, in our sphere of operations, equipped to make a contribution to corporate planning and action and, perhaps more important, we have acted in a professional manner as regards the sanctity of “inside” advance corporate information. In other words, we have lived by our own self-regulation. This we will continue to do, future legislation or not.
But for those in public relation who would do otherwise – and by their actions throw a shadow on our good name – the answer, it seems to me, is a law that would place the public relations practitioner with “inside” information on the same footing as his corporate client.
April 23, 1963
# # # # 9/10/2008 4:30 PM
My long-time friend and client at The Coca-Cola Company, Don Keough, has done all manner of executives – especially executives-to-be – a good turn by recording his common sense views in a new book mischievously titled “The Ten Commandments for Business Failure.”
Don is a Warren Buffett type guy, but that should come as no surprise. In earlier years, they lived across the street from one another in Omaha. So it’s no coincidence that Don is on the Berkshire Hathaway board while holding a full-time day job as chairman of the investment banking firm, Allen and Company, at age 81 after retiring as Coke’s president and chief operating officer 15 years ago.
Don Keough is very likely the most effective communicator I have known in business. Person-to-person and with arena-sized audiences, Don projects Eagle Scout-quality credibility even before he starts speaking. Literally, I have seen him evoke both tears and uncontrollable laughter from audiences within a 60-second time frame. As a business leader, he recognizes the importance of communications in achieving corporate goals. He taught me a long time ago that communications must extend far beyond corporate headquarters and the media – for example, to every level of the distribution chain that gets products into customer shopping carts.
Don’s most critical communications challenge, in 1985, was informing a nation of irate customers that the Coca-Cola they knew and loved, the original formula, would once again be available to them. It was his job to apologize to the American people and beg forgiveness for having deprived dedicated Coke drinkers of their favorite soft drink for eight weeks following introduction of “New Coke.” He also admitted Coke management had made a boner of the first order. Don appeared as a “talking head” in 30- and 60-second commercials that dominated TV for a full week. It worked like magic. Coca-Cola market share started increasing barely a month later.
Don has authored a gem of a book. By accenting the negative, he offers the reader forceful positive lessons on what makes a business successful.
Each of his chapters covers a “commandment” -- the first headed “Quit Taking Risks” followed by “Be Inflexible,” “Isolate Yourself,” “Assume Infallibility,” “Play the Game Close to the Foul Line,” “Don’t Take Time to Think,” “Put All Your Faith in Experts and Outside Consultants,” “Love Your Bureaucracy,” “Send Mixed Messages,” “Be Afraid of the Future” and, as an encore “Lose Your Passion for Work -- for Life.” The text is a few pages short of 200 and can be easily read in a couple evenings.
Although public relations thinking and the need for effective communications permeate the text, his “Send Mixed Messages” chapter is worth the price of the book for us public relations professionals. “At The Coca-Cola Company in the early 1970s,” he writes, “there were a number of situations where our communication was, at best, misleading, especially to our own people and our bottlers, but also to our retail customers.”
Fast-forwarding to 1981 when Roberto Goizueta and Don took over as a management team leading the company, Don writes “The first order of business was to unmix the mixed messages and convince everyone that while each sector of our global business could remain relatively autonomous, as markets had become more transnational, we had to do likewise…… The burden was on us to make sure every leader of the business from every part of the world would catch the message that our business – their business – had to change.”
Don Keough offers no easy fixes – just common sense solutions to problems any of us in business can identity with.
The moral of my choosing this topic as a subject is, simply, not as much “do yourself a favor and buy the book” as “do your boss a favor and buy one for him, too.”
# # #
PS: There’s one Don Keough story I can’t resist telling. It was at the Atlanta press conference on reverting back to the original Coca-Cola formula. Don was the Coke spokesperson and a reporter asked: “Mr. Keough, tell us the real story, wasn’t this whole episode planned in advance? You knew that taking Coke away would cause one heck of a ruckus, and you’d get loads of publicity on TV and in the newspapers about people demanding “the real thing” and finally you would cave in start again making the product you’ve made all along. Keough’s reply was classic: “We weren’t that smart,” he said, “and we weren’t that dumb.”
Disclosure: Coca-Cola is a Burson-Marsteller client. 8/25/2008 6:29 PMAnyone who skims the headlines knows that most of the world is challenged by an economy that’s losing its steam. It’s been that way for almost a year and the timing of an upturn is indeterminate, most likely not until well into next year.
The impact on public relations has been interesting – somewhat different from the dozen or so recessions Burson-Marsteller has weathered in its 55-year existence. Invariably, public relations/ communications budgets and cuts in staff were the first manifestation of rough economic goings in times past.
With the exception of the financial services and real estate/development sectors, that hasn’t happened with this recession. Of the several public relations firms with which I have discussed the subject, none has suffered reduced fee income or profits. In fact, at the current rate of activity, 2008 promises to be the best year for agencies since 2001/2002 –when the high tech bubble burst.
There seem to be several reasons for this new paradigm in the economics of public relations – over and above the intangible supposition that CEOs really believe reputation is a company’s most important asset.
The oncoming of the digital era is, I believe, the most significant factor underpinning the corporate commitment to maintain public relations budgets at present levels despite recession talk. Digital is still a “work in process” for most clients and their agencies. As an information dissemination vehicle, it has established itself; as an advertising vehicle, much remains to be learned on how best to use it.
Experimentation is taking place on how to deliver messages that are most persuasive in influencing listeners/viewers to buy one product or service over another. Clearly, the conventional full page newspaper ad or magazine spread won’t work in the new digital environment nor will the age-old dependable 30-second commercial.
Digital media present alternatives, some of the most effective at a relatively low cost. Clients and their public relations firms are deep into identifying what works – very definitely, one style doesn’t fit every foot. It’s a race no marketer can ignore – and at a time when the nature and ownership of digital content is still to be defined, public relations firms have proved to be both innovative and nimble navigating this fast-moving milieu.
A second reason is that marketers are more likely to recognize that public relations support can be effective in winning new customers and keeping those who have committed to a specific product or service. The increased use of research on how consumers make purchasing decisions has renewed interest in what we old-timers call product publicity.
A third reason for the sustained use of public relations even as the business momentum slows is that there is no longer a single unified economy for the global corporation. Even in the U.S., the economy varies by industry and by geography; the Midwest has been hard hit because of the loss of auto industry jobs while Silicon Valley, Texas and the southeast generally have had little adverse impact. Although now showing signs of a slowdown, both Europe and Asia have produced excellent profits for global corporations.
This is not to say that public relations/communications offers a guaranteed safe employment haven in a falling economy. But we can take some comfort in that we no longer seem to be a leading indicator for an economic recession.
7/18/2008 3:34 AM
On October 19, 1987 the Dow-Jones Industrial Index tumbled 508 points to 1739, a drop of 22.6 percent, the steepest ever. Five days later, Bill Schrier, Merrill Lynch CEO, in a “talking head” television commercial explained to a World Series audience why “Merrill Lynch is bullish on America.”
Soon other CEOs chimed in, proclaiming their belief in the strength of the U.S. economy and the will of American business to regain its forward momentum. It was the start of the most sustained economic boom ever.
Admittedly, the recent (and on-going) spate of precipitous write-offs by our largest, most successful and most trusted financial service institutions has deeper roots and potentially more severe consequences than the stock market plunge two decades ago.
Bad investment decisions and a failure of financial specialists to understand the ultimate consequences of newly-created financial instruments are in themselves enough to shatter the confidence of investors and the public alike.
But add to a deteriorating economic environment the ravenous appetites of today’s media for bad news and “perfect storm” and “self-fulfilling prophesy” become apt metaphors for present-day economic alarm. The unfortunate fact is that modern media – the all news television networks and the internet, especially – thrive on negative news – Gresham’s law run wild!
The pity is that our country’s resources are as bountiful as ever, our people possessed of the same skills and sense of enterprise that made our economy the most productive on the face of the earth over a relatively short time frame. Our failings are not that we lack resources, human or material; they result from bad decisions based on unrealistic economic expectations and a lack of political will and leadership in our governance process.
Business, particularly the financial services sector, perhaps more justifiably than not, will forevermore be blamed for the present economic instability. To date, the “fix” – the bail out – has been government-inspired and financed, led in large part by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the latter a former CEO of the only giant banking firm to emerge whole from the recent debacle.
It is understandable that CEOs in the financial sector have not sought the public spotlight. It is true that many corporations in other businesses have failed to meet what likely are unrealistic earnings objectives imposed upon them by independent financial analysts. Companies which should have been applauded for lesser earnings than in previous periods are severely punished when they missed earnings expectations imposed on them by outsiders.
But it is puzzling that so many CEOs of major corporations are silent on the longer term expectations of business. Especially at a time when business in wide swaths of the world is, at the worst, growing at a slower rate than in years past and at a time when earnings outside the United States exceed those at home.
In the light of the importance of global business to American corporations, it is especially puzzling that business leaders are so silent in their defense of global trade, one specific instance being the trade pact with Colombia, by all measures an undisguised win-win for the United States.
In public attitude polls, business has never been so lowly regarded. There are many reasons – substantial layoffs, home foreclosures and automobile repossessions, cancelled credit cards, perceived outrageous CEO compensation, rising gasoline and household staples, mainly food, prices, higher co-pay for medical services and prescription drugs. That the “average” American family is under severe economic pressure is hardly debatable.
Which means that business must be more sensitive than ever in fashioning its behavior and communicating in a manner that, first, addresses the problems, and, second, restores confidence in the American market system that has work so well for so many for so long.
# # # # 6/11/2008 6:33 PM
You can just imagine how many e-mails and telephone calls I’ve gotten in the wake of the recent unflattering and untruthful CBS “Sunday Morning” diatribe on the behavior and characteristics of public relations professionals – and coming from a lawyer, at that.
Usually, I see “Sunday Morning” – I’ve been a fan since Charles Kuralt was its first host. I’ve been no less a loyal viewer since Charles Osgood took over. But I happened to miss the Sunday installment that featured CBS’s legal news analyst though by now I know by heart the content of his ill-tempered statement.
Never unemployed and engaged in public relations all my working life, I calculated that, in the context of his commentary, I have been lying for more than 60 years -- maybe a qualification for the Guinness Record Book.
This inference neither troubles me personally nor do I believe it harms me professionally. But I am highly irritated about what it says about the thousands of corporate executives, government officials, NGO advocates, and, perhaps most significant of all, editors and reporters with whom I have worked and shared confidences for six decades – not to speak of the millions of people around the world who have been the recipients of information I have had a hand in crafting.
I submit they’re smarter than what the CBS commentary implies. I don’t believe those with whom I have worked to disseminate my clients’ messages are so gullible (or so dumbly obliging) to be parties to the communication of lies. On the contrary, I think editors and reporters have played an important role holding public relations professionals like me to acceptable standards of fact and decency. Nor do I believe the recipients of those messages are so easily manipulated.
The grey area – as with all manner of media – is not in reporting facts. Rather, it’s in how those facts are interpreted.
Increasingly, news media are in the business of interpretation and commentary, areas once confined to the editorial page. Many if not most newsmen forget that we in public relations are not surrogates of journalists or media. Rather, we are the paid advocates of clients who have a point of view that may be questioned by affected parties. Our interpretation in serving our clients may differ from how a reporter reacts to the same set of facts. But this is nothing new in the world of journalism; editorial writers frequently have differing points of view than those expressed in a publication’s news columns.
But three score years of working in this arena have convinced me that, after all is said and done, the public gets it right. Brand names like Coca-Cola, Frito-Lay, Rolls Royce, Tiffany, Lipton, McDonald’s, Nestle, Hormel, Kraft, Budweiser, Shell and a hundred others retain their high market shares year after year because they deliver on their promise. They participate in an election every day for the customer’s vote at a time when the success rate of newly introduced competitive products is in the very low single digits.
The fact is, an individual, an organization, a product gets only one chance to lie to the public. Even in a nation of 300 million, the public early on arrives at a collective opinion – and lying over even the short run simply doesn’t work in a democratic society.
The greater lesson from the CBS incident for those of us in public relations is that it reminds us that we have done a terrible job explaining what we do. What’s the logic of claiming ethical standards when most people – including many in public relations – are unable to define the term?
Our collective failing has been in not being more specific about what we do on behalf of our clients and employers under the rubric of public relations and, more recently, communications. And making known that public relations has existed from the time humans began interacting with one another and, knowingly or not has been practiced for millennia – all the while a neutral discipline that can be used for what’s good for society and, from time to time, what’s not so good.
Given the will, there’s plenty of time to fix it – and forget about CBS “Sunday Morning.”
# # # #
3/30/2008 8:12 PM
It’s annual report time and you can be sure that many, if not most corporations, have made a special effort to report on their CSR (corporate social responsibility) initiatives, some with separate documents that highlight their actions to preserve the environment and maintain the planet’s sustainability.
CSR has, in fact, become an active subset of public relations in recent years, often touted by our trade press as a magic wand that solidifies relationships with stakeholders and brings about universal respect, maybe even affection, for the sufficiently committed corporation.
The fact is that some corporations, in the U.S. as well as Europe, recognized their responsibility as social entities before the dawn of the 20th Century. Think “mill” towns; think Hershey, Pennsylvania. Companies built livable and affordable housing, schools and medical facilities for their employees. Altruism was not the reason. They did it because it was good business. It gave them a nearby, stable and generally contented labor force. And it pointed the U.S. on the road toward creating the world’s most productive economy.
In the less complicated world in which business once did business the corporation’s role in society was relatively simple. It was to manufacture products and deliver services that were valued by its customers, provide steady jobs for employees, be a good corporate citizen in communities where it was located and compensate stockholders with a reasonable return on their investment. That, in effect, was the social compact between business and society – and it worked for many years.
Starting in the 1980s, the corporation’s primary mission veered in another direction. All one need do is look up annual reports of that era. Their avowed purpose, boldly communicated, became “maximizing shareowner investment.” Purging companies of unproductive assets (including extraneous people) became the prevailing priority. Corporate social responsibility took a back seat.
But one of this country’s wonderful characteristics is its innate ability to self-correct. This has manifested itself many times in politics, but it also happens in business. Once the pendulum sweeps too far in one direction, it begins moving counter-wise. The recent reintroduction of “corporate social responsibility” to the business lexicon is, I hope, one of those manifestations.
But let me offer a caution prompted by my recent re-reading of Charles Dicken’s satiric novel “Bleak House,” published in 1853. One of Dicken’s most memorable characters is Mrs. Jellaby. She espoused every imaginable worthy cause, her latest the plight of the natives of Boorie-goola-Gha on the left bank of the Niger. She called it her African project and it occupied her near full time.
Then Dickens tells us the state of Mrs. Jellaby’s personal and family affairs. Her house is strewn with paper and other rubbish, the furniture and floors covered with dust and grime. Her children are in a dire state of neglect, badly clothed and unfed. Her son’s head is stuck between the banister railings. But Mrs. Jellaby doesn’t seem to notice, much less care. Mrs. Jellaby is obsessed with her African project.
The lesson of Mrs. Jellaby – as I have said before in articles and speeches -- applies not only to social critics and reformers, self-appointed or otherwise. It applies also to executives who must balance the many obligations confronting the modern corporation.
A corporation’s first duty, as I see it, is to manage its affairs properly and profitably. It must, as indicated earlier, deliver products and services that fulfill the customer’s need and meet stringent tests of safety and reliability. It must compensate employees fairly and provide fulfilling career paths and a safe working environment. It must reward stockholder/owners with a satisfactory return on their investment. And, yes, it must also support schools and hospitals and cultural institutions that serve its numerous stakeholders. It should recognize that its greatest payback from its CSR investment will come from initiatives that benefit those with the closest business connection to its growth and profitability – mainly its own employees.
Corporate participation in meritorious public service undertakings – local, national or global – is, of course, to be commended. But those that gain goodwill and enhance corporate reputation most are still those with a business connection to the donor. That’s why large corporations with mega-buck philanthropy budgets employ professionals to decide where they spend their money. Charity without a business purpose is not a prudent use of stockholder funds; there must be a business purpose, a meaningful business rationale.
It’s the reason Coca-Cola is directing millions of dollars to provide water to Darfur refugees, why Exxon supports teaching engineering and sciences in colleges, why Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Merck and other pharmaceutical companies focus on health and disease. Coca-Cola sells water and uses it in its soft drinks; Exxon employs hundreds of engineers and scientists every year; health care and treating disease is central to pharmaceutical companies. Numerous other companies are working effectively with NGOs on initiatives in which the two parties have addressed mutual issues (McDonald’s was a pioneer with highly successful results.) In all these instances employees, customers, the public, even stockholders get the connection between corporate social responsibility and good business practice. It’s easy to understand.
What’s the point I want to make? Simply that there’s more to corporate social responsibility than do-goodism. When implemented correctly, it’s an important part of the reputation building process. It adds to the bottom line with greater sales and consumer satisfaction. It serves as a positive differentiator from competitors. It’s a form of corporate behavior we in public relations should embrace whole-heartedly.
# # #
Harold Burson
March 31, 2008
2/27/2008 7:05 PM
My only thought on how long I was going to live was that, with luck, I would make it to the biblical three score and ten. Genetically, I had a good shot: my Father fell short by two years, my Mother made it to a couple months short of 90.
Nor did I ever give much thought (really none) to retirement or what I would do after reaching the magical year of disengagement, 65, in my case, February 1986. Having joined Young & Rubicam seven years earlier, Burson-Marsteller was on the road to becoming the world’s largest public relations firm in 1983. My fellow Y&R board members asked me to stay on and I remained CEO through 1988. Jim Dowling, a colleague of 20-plus years, succeeded me. He had no interest in my departing and I stayed on with the stipulation that I wanted no part of day-to-day management, especially anything having to do with budgeting and the bottom line. It’s been that way for 20 years.
Longevity and staying on the job is not that rare in public relations. Edward L. Bernays, who literally defined public relations counseling and began its institutionalization as a business discipline, reached 103 before packing it in. My close friend and competitor John Hill was still on the payroll when he died at 85. Tim Traverse-Healy, a friend since the early 60s, is still active as one of the UK’s most respected counselors – and he’s a wee bit longer of tooth than I.
Closer to home are two long timers who, like me, started their businesses after World War II and are still active (though, also like me, no longer CEO). One is Dan Edelman, founder of the firm that nears his name; the other, David Finn, is the Finn of Ruder Finn (as a matter of fact, Bill Ruder, the Ruder of Ruder Finn, is also still active though for many years as an independent counselor). Dan, David and I were born within a year of one another, and I can never keep straight who among us is eldest and who is youngest. Al Golen of Golen Harris is still a kid; he’s not even 80.
Many with whom I come in contact – especially retired former colleagues, clients and competitors – seem curious about an octogenarian’s worthiness in a fast-moving global public relations enterprise whose median staff age is, at most, 32. Usually, the discussion starts with a polite “do you actually go to work every day?” My response is “well, I go to the office every day – unless I am traveling and that’s usually for business reasons.” (Note the subtlety of not claiming to go to work every day!)
The more difficult part of the conversation is explaining what I do at the office. (Remember that no one in the past 20 years has told me what I am supposed to do.) So, as a starter, I am available to fellow employees across the broad spectrum of Burson-Marsteller; they know that I personally answer my telephone (unless I am speaking to another caller) and that I respond (usually quickly) to e-mail messages; also, that my office door is always open. As one may expect, many of the calls are along the lines of “when did we open our Singapore office?” or ”have we ever worked for a company that builds aircraft carriers?” But some actually want my input on real-life client situations. Second, there are a few long-time clients with whom I have an ongoing relationship – though, admittedly, my role nowadays is more talk than walk. One of them is the U.S. Postal Service, a remarkable institution whose entire business is built around the concept of customer service. Two others are Coca-Cola and Merrill Lynch, with whom I have had quarter century relationships.
Another activity is what I describe as institutional and ceremonial events. In addition to banquets and the like, I attend Burson-Marsteller anniversaries and other happenings of note. Last year, for example, I was at our 30th anniversary in Oslo, our 30th anniversary in Sao Paulo, our 40th anniversary in London and, in January, the 50th anniversary of our Pittsburgh office. Usually, I make a short talk, but the most fun is renewing acquaintances with former B-M colleagues and clients, past and present. (I reckon there are some 20,000 Burson-Marsteller alumni in 35 countries).
Spending time on college campuses with public relations and journalism majors, and occasionally at graduate schools of business, is a special treat for me. I do three or four a year and usually spend a full day talking with students and faculty and, increasingly of late, getting rock star treatment from the students (now mostly female). In the past few months, I was at the University of Georgia Graduate School of Business in Athens, GA and the James Madison University College of Communications in Harrisburg, VA (not the easiest place in the world to get to!).
I get lots of invitations to speak at public relations conferences such as the 10th Anniversary of the Russian Public Relations Association in St. Petersberg a couple years ago. It was my first visit to the former Leningrad and my host, Andrey Barranikov, made it one our most memorable travel experiences (my wife, Bette, was with me). Since then, I was a keynoter for the IPRA world conference in New Delhi and the annual meeting of German political consultants in Berlin. Coming up is the IPRA world conference in Beijing in November.
All in all, it’s a fairly active agenda, especially when one must also be “on show” as a relic of the past for visiting clients, visiting Burson-Marsteller employees and the occasional news person who hasn’t much else to write about.
After all, it’s a job – and I like every minute of it.
# # # #
Harold Burson
February 28, 2008
1/3/2008 7:00 PM
Not long ago at a Q&A session following my talk to college majors in public relations, one of them asked, “Mr. Burson, do you think the Internet will replace public relations?”
Along a similar line of thought, PRWeek recently published an article headlined “Word of Mouth, PR are a good fit.” It described a survey whose findings were said to “validate word-of-mouth marketing as an industry and should make PR pros take notice.” It admonished PR to “take a leadership role in the word-of-mouth marketing movement.”
This reinforces a belief I have held for some time: that many who should know better, including public relations professionals, don’t know the definition of the term “public relations.” And because of their ignorance, public relations risks being re-defined in a manner that fails to recognize its totality and, therefore, results in its devaluation in the eyes of our bosses and clients.
To me, public relations is an applied social science. Its goal, in the broadest terms, is to reconcile institutional or individual goals with the public interest with the purpose of motivating specific audiences to a specific course of action. It’s a two-step process: first, strategic, i.e. counseling decision makers to help them evaluate the environment in which their decisions are being made and the likelihood that those decisions will result in the desired response: and second, tactical, i.e. to communicate effectively the information that will motivate the audience to the desired course of action.
Note especially that public relations has two components: one strategic, the other tactical. The first encompasses the thinking and knowledge that go into planning an effective course of action that takes into account presently-held attitudes and externalities that affect acceptance of the desired objective. The second, while tactical in its overall impact, also includes such strategic considerations as honing messages that communicate the objective in a convincing manner. And, of course, it encompasses information dissemination skills and the ability to present that information in a manner that commands the attention of those media which most effectively reach the target audience.
The strategic component of public relations, once referred to as “counseling,” requires a broad knowledge base – both general and specific. The public relations counselor must be a close observer of trends in business, politics and social conditions; he/she must also have deep knowledge of the subject-at-hand, whether it be an issue like the environment or health care, a business transaction like a merger or a new stock issue or a specific industry. Ideally, the public relations counselor will have, at the least, an understanding of behavioral psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, history, economics and political science.
Each of these disciplines plays some role in achieving the basic objective of any public relations exercise. But most important of all, the effective counselor is a person possessed of good judgment – possessed of an intuitive sense of what is right and what is wrong, and a deep sensitivity to how people behave and react.
Public relations is both an umbrella term that 1– defines the discipline that deals with relationships with the public and that 2– measures the “standing” or regard in which a person or an institution is held by others in contact with that person or institution.
Here’s how a collegiate level dictionary defines public relations: 1. the art or science of establishing and promoting a favorable relationship with the public. 2. The methods and activities used to establish and promote such a relationship. 3. The degree of success obtained in achieving such a relationship. (My now deceased long-time friend, Denny Griswold, a co-founder of Public Relations News, put it this way: public relations is doing good and getting credit for it.)
As a discipline used by business, government and individuals, public relations is strategic in its application. It enables the user of public relations to evolve a strategy that will facilitate the achievement of a goal involving a specific audience. Its leverage is public opinion. Simply put, public opinion can be affected in only three ways: 1) public opinion can be created where none now exists; 2) existing public opinion can be reinforced; 3) existing public opinion can be changed. Whether we as public relations professionals succeed or fail depends on how we impact public opinion.
Publicity – a word seldom mentioned in today’s world of communications -- has and will continue to be one of the principal information dissemination “tools” of public relations. Publicity or nowadays “earned media” comes about when the aspirations of a person or institution are of interest to readers of newspapers, those who listen to radio or watch television and, more recently, those who depend on the internet for most of their information. (Effective publicists are people I have long valued – even admired; they have a unique talent.)
Word-of-mouth has long been recognized as one of the most effective influencers of public opinion. Contrary to the PRWeek article, it was likely the very first way information was disseminated, even before the primitive cave drawings and the development of a written language. From the time public relations was formalized as a business discipline, word-of-mouth has been prized as an effective way to deliver a message.
Although a mammoth industry in itself, magnitudes larger than public relations, advertising is often a tool employed by public relations specialists to reach audiences with specific messages. There is no more effective way to control a message or to deliver it to a specifically targeted audience.
Digital is the newest of the message delivery systems that have evolved to disseminate information. In a real sense, it is the latest in a technological continuum starting with Gutenberg’s printing press in the late 15th Century. To be sure, it is different from newspapers, magazines, radio and television. It reaffirms Marshall McLuhan’s “the media is the message” dictum of a half century ago. The same message delivered by printed word affects our sensitivities differently than when delivered by radio or television. Even within the print media category, the same article in one newspaper impacts the reader differently than in another, depending on the reputation of each. And so it will be with the Internet.
The answer to the question, “will the Internet replace public relations?” is, therefore, “No, Virginia, but it will most certainly enhance its effectiveness and, to some considerable extent, change the way messages are delivered to various audiences.”
And, so long as its objective is to motivate an audience to a desired course of action the process will continue to be under the public relations umbrella.
# # # #
- Harold Burson
9/19/2007 5:45 AM
An article in a recent New York Times Magazine (Sept. 2) about Mark Penn’s compelling new book “Microtrends” described Burson-Marsteller as a firm “which likes to call itself the world’s largest public relations firm.”
Admittedly, there was a time when we used those words to describe ourselves. But for the past five years or so, the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation has prevented us from knowing which firm is the largest.
Nine of the 10 largest firms no longer disclose their annual revenues. But we are relatively certain that Burson-Marsteller is not now at the top of the heap.
We lost that position the past few years as many of our competitors went on acquisition sprees to bolster their specialized offerings and their geographical spread. In contrast, Burson-Marsteller, from its outset 54 years ago, has been sparse in making acquisitions. Our 2006 acquisition of Genesis, India’s largest public relations firm with 200-plus employees in five offices is a notable exception.
At this point, I believe nearly all the top 10 firms have a sufficient revenue base to support a global public relations infrastructure capable of serving even the largest clients. Another 10 million – even another 50 million – in revenues is no longer a significant reason to choose one of the big firms over another.
This is not to say that we at Burson-Marsteller do not prize growth. Growth is a metric for success both internally and externally; it makes possible retaining and motivating staff professionals. Only with growth can those professionals achieve greater responsibility, greater challenges and larger munificent rewards. Nor have we been outsiders in the growth process.
In 1953 our first year revenues were about $100,000. Our first million dollar year (about $4.5 million in today’s dollars) came 10 years later.
It took us another 20 years (1983) to surpass the long-time industry leader Hill and Knowlton and become the world’s largest public relations firm with revenues of $63,667,000.
Two years later, in 1985, we were the first public relations firm to reach a hundred million in revenues.
Ten years later, in 1995, we passed the two hundred million mark, again a first.
Five years later, in 2000, we soared to more than three hundred million, a result, to some substantial extent, of the unnatural Silicon Valley bubble. And, admittedly, like most, if not all, of our major competitors, we lost ground during the subsequent recession years.
From that time onward, lacking specific knowledge of competitor revenues, our descriptor is that we are “one of the leading global public relations firms” or “a leading global public relations firm.”
But as a “positioner” of the firm that bears my name, I like the words Paul Holmes used in one of his early annual firm ratings. Simply, that "Burson-Marsteller is the public relations firm against which all others are measured."
Regardless of the amount of revenues, my associates around the world work hard to continue deserving that distinction.
7/30/2007 12:00 AM
The First Amendment to our Constitution – the first of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights – reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The same forty-five words that guarantee a free press also guarantee the right to make one's views known to the Congress and the Executive branches of government – in today's parlance, to lobby. Journalists correctly and regularly defend their right to a free press; some, one of them only months ago, have even served jail time defending this Constitutional right.
But it's ironic that the same journalists who staunchly defend freedom of the press are quick to denigrate – even deny – the people's right to petition the Government – the right to lobby Congress and communicate with the numerous government departments and agencies.
The media – as reflected in the near-unanimous pejorative "spin" in their news stories and opinion columns – would have you believe "lobbying" is a dirty word despite its Constitutional guarantee. To be sure, lobbying is not immune from skullduggery.
That's why there are laws and regulations that define the bounds of lobbying, drawing lines that separate the legal and legitimate from the illegal and unlawful. Throughout our history, illegal lobbying scandals have resulted in prison time for the unscrupulous rascals who corrupted the administrative and legislative processes of government.
It's a mark of human nature that each generation believes both the apex and the nadir of human events happen within that generation's allotted time frame. Corruption has been top-of-mind from the earliest days of our Republic – just do a bit of reading about the use of influence in the administration of John Adams or Andrew Jackson. Or the Civil War era as suppliers of all manner of merchandise got richer and richer. It popped up again in a big way in the late Nineteenth Century as railroad robber barons made land grabs clear across the country from the Erie Canal in New York to the Columbia River in Oregon. Followed by the Teapot Dome scandal in the early Twentieth Century and, more recently, the unsavory antics of lawyer Jack Abramoff and his well-placed government pawns.
Money, of course, has always been the root of the evil – an implied (in some instances actual) payoff to elected officials for personal or institutional gain. A big difference nowadays is the once-unimaginable magnitude of the sums that move from supplicant to benefactor. Just a few decades ago the much smaller contributions from lobbyists to office holders seeking reelection or their challengers was regarded as a way to assure access should a specific issue arise that affected a donor. A donor's total contribution in an election cycle was often measured in the tens of thousands of dollars. The public presumption was that an elected Federal official could not be bought for just a few thousand dollars.
Today there's timely transparency in the political contributions process. Within days of the end of a quarter, the public knows who gave how much to which candidates. Using a legalized process known as "bundling" (assembling maximum allowable individual contributions and delivering them as a unified total) millions of dollars are attributed to a single individual donor or institution.
It's not a far stretch to assume one doesn't contribute sums of that magnitude unless there's an expectation beyond simple access. But the Supreme Court has ruled that so long as monetary donations comply with the laws governing reporting and specified dollar limits, the practice is Constitutionally protected as an exercise of free speech.
The real issue is recognizing that our Constitution guarantees the right to petition government and that the word we apply to that process – lobbying – is in no way a negative, rather the term applied to a methodology that connects citizens (both individual and institutional) to their government.
As for those who make illicit or illegal use of the process, there are laws that can be used to punish their aberrational behavior. If the laws are no longer as protective as they should be, new laws should be passed. One good place to start would be to make the election process much shorter – Congressional as well as Presidential – a move that would make elections less costly.
As for continuing to beat up on lobbying and lobbyists per se, those reporting the news from Washington and other political centers really know better. Lobbying should not be regarded prima facie as a pejorative. 6/6/2007 1:56 PM
The notion of "free publicity" or "great results with a ridiculously low budget" troubles me. It troubles me even more when public relations media make a virtue of the cost advantages of public relations (publicity) over advertising and other methods of disseminating information. My concern is that it discourages the best and the brightest to embark on a career in public relations.
In real life, there ain't no such thing as "free publicity" any more than there's "free advertising." When something appears in print or on television or on a no-pay web site, it's the result of someone's creative effort. The act of creation and implementation takes time; time equals money; ergo, there's a cost.
The problem with "great results with a ridiculously low budget" is somewhat different. "Great results" imply extraordinary creative input and flawless execution. Performance at that level, it seems to me, merits a premium rather than a bargain basement level price. In fact, boasting of low cost diminishes the value of services we public relations professionals provide. Like other professionals, we deserve to be compensated at a level that equates with the value we add rather than seek praise for how little we charge.
There is demonstrable evidence that public relations has never been so highly regarded at the CEO level. At many, if not most, FORTUNE 500 companies the senior public relations officer bears the title of senior vice president (increasingly, executive vice president); he/she sits on the company's management committee; total annual compensation is often in the medium to high six figures or more.
Yet, at the marketing level, agency selections are often based on the lowest hourly aggregate fee – a practice that can't avoid motivating the agency to assign its lowest salaried professionals. Or when creativity, experience and chemistry are set forth as metrics on which agency selection decisions are made, client procurement departments are often called in to "negotiate" compensation terms.* It goes without saying that this means paying the lowest possible fees.
When it comes to selling consumer goods or services, I have never believed that publicity (we call it "earned media" nowadays) is a substitute for paid advertising. However, editorial coverage and other activities within the rubric of public relations have the potential to make advertising more effective by enhancing credibility and increasing reach. But in spite of the strong positives derived from publicity's third party implied endorsement, marketing support budgets are all too frequently at inadequate levels. The case I would make is that if publicity can enhance a $10 million advertising campaign 20 percent, it's worth an investment commensurate with such an objective.
Both clients and public relations firms have come to regard marketing support programs more as a commodity than the specialty that strengthens the bond between marketer and customer-consumer. Moreover, breaking into the major media is increasingly difficult nowadays because of more intense competition for time and space. The editorial bar keeps rising and the creativity needed to convince an editor must keep apace. It seems to me there's an irony in devaluing the public relations service that actually makes the cash register ring.
Professionalism comes at a price. It's no different in public relations than in law or medicine or engineering or management consulting. Our objective, whether as client or agency, is to attract the very best people to our ranks. Boasting that the professional service we deliver is low cost does nothing to attract the best and brightest of our college graduates. To meet today's challenge – in marketing support and the numerous other subsets of public relations – we need those who excel and we must be prepared to pay the price commensurate with their value.
When buyers of public relations services make their selection on the basis of price, they are selling both their chosen agencies and themselves short. That simply doesn't make sense.
# # #
*Some twenty years ago, I could expect a year-end annual telephone call from the CEO of one of our largest clients asking if we were satisfied with the profitability on our work for his FORTUNE 100 company. After a couple years, I asked him why he did this. He answered. "I figure the more you make on our business, the more likely you will be to assign us your best people." They don't make CEO's like that any more!
5/20/2007 1:42 PMAt this time of the year, literally thousands of newly-minted public relations practitioners are entering the work force, most of them who describe themselves as communicators. The fact is, attendance at schools of communications is at an all-time high and public relations - usually one of three courses of study alongside journalism and advertising - is most often the calling of choice.
Somehow, most of these graduates get jobs - entry level public relations jobs - many with not-for-profit organizations and others with corporations and public relations firms. That they do so in annually accelerating numbers is concrete evidence recognizing the role of public relations in today's complex social and economic environment.
Early on in our existence at Burson-Marsteller - starting in the 1960s - we instituted our Summer Intern Program. It has been an unqualified success, not only from the standpoint of the student intern but as a source of bright entry level staffers who were able to demonstrate in real time - often in real client situations - their capability. A win-win situation for both parties.
For most of my career, I have happily accepted invitations from schools of communication to address students. In more recent years, I have regarded such opportunities as a "pay back" recognizing what public relations has meant to me in terms of career satisfaction as well as financial reward. Earlier, my objective was that sharing my experience could have the potential of "bettering the breed."
* * * *
The question most often asked me by both students and interns is along the lines of:
"Mr. Burson, based on your experience, what is your best advice for us as we start out careers in public relations? What are the three or four things you think will count most?
This is what I tell them:
- Networking is the most important activity you can undertake, starting now. Approach it in terms of building a support infrastructure that you can tap into as your career and your life goes forward. But never think that networking is simply a matter of knowing people. To be effective, it takes an underlying relationship - shared experiences -- and you've got to work at it. Just one example of the payoff: when I ask newly recruited employees how they happened to come on to Burson- Marsteller, no less than half say "I knew someone who knew someone" - you get the point!
- Working as a member of an organization - a team - is an essential in most careers, especially business. My successor as B-M CEO, Jim Dowling, put it this way: "We prize the individual; we celebrate the team." It is essential that you earn the trust of those around you: not only your boss, but also your peers and, equally important, the people who work for you. My late partner Bill Marsteller maintained "your direct reports are the ones who really 'nominate' you for promotion to higher responsibility." At Burson-Marsteller more than half of all involuntary separations of professional employees is caused by an employee's inability to work with his/her teammates - to "fit in" as a member of the organization.
- Never cease working to become a better writer and a more effective speaker. One of the scarcest commodities in public relations today is the scarcity of competent writers. My observation is that the newly-hired staffer who demonstrates a strong writing ability soon becomes one of the office's most billable employees. There is always a need for good writing, and word spreads fast.
- Develop as broad a knowledge base as possible. In our kind of work, all kinds of problems arise. And as consultants, in all fields of social, political and economic endeavor. Strive never to be caught tongue-tied for a total lack of knowledge even on a subject remote to your every day existence. The old fashioned way of doing this has been by reading - traditionally, newspapers, magazines, books and, of course, television and radio. The new way is the internet - about which most of you are far moré au courant than I. The best advice my Father ever gave me was "try always to be in the know."
* * * *
My good wishes to all recent graduates seeking a career in public relations. Even after so many years, I well remember my early years and the many individuals who contributed to whatever success has been heaped upon me. I could never have done it alone - and I believe, at the end of the day, many years from now, you will feel as I do. 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. 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. 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 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. 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." 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.
# # # # 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. 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. 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.
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.
# # # # 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.
# # # # 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.
# # # # 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.'" 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. 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. 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. 2/14/2006 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. |
|