Back in the 1970s, there was a vision of a paperless office; whilst the futurist, Alvin Toffler predicted increased technology was creating information overload. The reality is that we’re using more paper than ever – alongside an ever exploding volume of online content. I’m sure I could find data to illustrate the trend, but I’m overwhelmed with infographics, slideshare presentations, YouTube videos and a zillion other sources. There’s so much stuff out there (and increasingly filling up our email inboxes, social media feeds and so on) that we’re all suffering from toxic communications.

So in a world where it is getting harder and harder to find a quiet time or place to think or rest your eyes or brain without the onslaught of more promotional information, why is everyone contending to be the kings (or queens) of content?

Public relations practitioners claim to be producing content (not building relationships with publics). Journalists have been reinvented as content producers – with many migrating inside organisations where they are creating content instead of internal communications, or acting as ‘journalist in residence’ to dig up stories for those PR folk to promote. Ford has set up a a content factory, where like communicative Oompa Loompas, words and images are the output of a production process worthy of old Henry himself.

Then, our marketing colleagues seem to have given up on innovating products and services, conceiving pricing and distribution strategies and honed in on the content business. Like tins of beans to be stacked up and sold, marketers are keen to automate content with ideas, news, information and editorial features generated for the sole purpose of filling up ever expanding online channels.

Despite the talk of engagement and listening, it seems organisations and their professional coteries of communicators are really just looking to package their key messages and brand assets to be spewed around the online universe in ever increasing, or decreasing, circles. And coming right back at them is an avalanche of user generated content. It seems everyone is shouting louder and faster, and rather than listening, they hastily play pass the parcel with whatever content is whizzing their way.

Well, I’m not content to be churning out meaningless content. What I like about PR Conversations is that it encourages slow reads of considered thoughts by interesting people, stimulating (we hope) equally considered responses. This isn’t the place for 140 characters, whizz bang multimedia or content that is updated every 30 seconds.

We may well operate in an ‘always on’ communications environment where PR practitioners and journalists (or content generators/curators if you prefer) are expected to create and respond to whatever publics and influencers are saying, anywhere in the world. But is this really productive communications? Have we effectively improved knowledge, changed attitudes or motivated behaviour? Have we listened and counselled our clients/employers in a meaningful way? Or can we just point to the content we have generated and its online trail as evidence of our worth?

My call is for less babble and more intelligent and informed narrative. Silence is not an ugly word and is indeed one of the most effective elements of communications – where would we be without white space in print; silence is much needed white space.

Maybe this is an unrealistic call – there’s money to be made in content creation clearly. But at what cost to our sanity and clarity of communications?

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Photo by Enid Bloch

Beyond Ground Zero: shifting the public relations discourse to an American Muslim identity and global alliance of moderates

Toni Muzi Falconi’s conversation with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf on the value of public relations

Recently I was granted the privilege of an extensive conversation with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in New York, following up on our first direct encounter in Kuala Lumpur at the inaugural Muslim PR Congress.

Just like my report on the Congress, I am happy to share this interview with readers of PR Conversations.

Religion as a divisive, political issue in the USA?

Deciding to open the conversation cautiously (due to a continuing lack of knowledge about of Muslim and Islamic issues) on a more general subject, one that has struck me of late: how far religion has gone to become a major and divisive political issue in the USA, constantly evoked, whatever the argument. By that I mean that an excess of using religion as a claw to pollute the democratic system rather than, for example, picking on the Citizen United Super Pacs, which have expanded unlimited and unaccounted political spending (reports indicate that compared to only four years ago, this spending has risen by 46 per cent!).

Very courteously, Feisal disagreed with the “spirit” of my question. In fact , according to Imam Feisal, the last century in the USA—but also in Europe, the Middle East and, of course, Russia and China—have been so permeated by atheism, that the three monotheistic faiths (Christian, Jewish and Muslim) simply and independently moved to a more combative and assertive expression of religiosity. Imam Feisal recalls having been very struck back in 1966 with the cover article in Time Magazine, Is God Dead?

“Unpacking“

Anticipated to be much acclaimed, on May 8, 2012, the Imam is launching (with Free Press) a new book, Moving the Mountain. In this book he affirms the importance of defining terms—he uses the term “unpacking”—in order to reduce the impressive amount of “loose talk” on Islam and Muslims. By Islam, for example, he means “a set of actions,” not a concept in which one believes. It is this same “loose talk” that creates so many wrong perceptions, both within the Muslim community and in society at large.

To give you another example, if I ask, “What does Islam say?” on any issue, the Imam responds, “You have transformed the verb into a noun, implying that there is only one answer…and this is certainly not the case.”

“Unpacking” is the Imam’s term to imply that there is much relativism in the many contradictory things and opinions the Prophet expressed, according to specific and situational circumstances. Therefore, any form of ideological fundamentalism goes against a true interpretation of the Muslim religion.

This is a concept that is very dear to our PR profession, which supposedly and stereotypically thrives on “loose talk,” one of the very causes of its dubious reputation. In other words, it is that very “loose talk” that stimulates confusion.

During our conversation (in which I discovered similarly strong feelings about defining terms), we decided to “unpack” or “deconstruct” what we would talk about. I was stunned by his approach towards the concepts of absolutism and relativism, atypical to my stereotypical position towards monotheistic religions.

Backed up by a Gallup poll (10 years of ongoing monitoring) on how the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims view Americans, the Imam firmly stands behind the finding that only seven per cent of global Muslims can be considered extremists. Yet it is that very seven per cent who through their extreme —i.e., militant intolerance for differing points of view—behaviours and actions have formed and shaped public opinion. This is to the point that these figures appear to most of us to be largely questionable. Admittedly, it’s also because so many Muslims profess absolutist views in the public realm, therefore influencing others.

Musing: I wonder if a similar argument applies to our PR profession. In some ways our reputation is largely determined by the actions of a few unethical and/or simply idiotic and unaware professionals. Yet what is probably a small minority, through their behavior and actions, also translates to the majority of media coverage and, thus, continues the clichés of labels, actions and reputation, such as spin doctors.

The media and the “Ground Zero mega mosque”

Rare is the leader of any sort that does not sometime (more often than not) blame the media for distorting the facts. Imam Feisal is no exception.

With decades of professional experience, I’ve come to consider this an intellectual sin and mistake (even if media distortions are a fact of life), because one must ask the question of why that distortion takes place.

In the Imam’s case, as he puts it, “I have been rebranded by the media. What was actually the Cordoba Initiative—a multinational, multi-faith worship place including a dedicated Islamic prayer space—very quickly became, in the eyes of the public worldwide, the ‘Ground Zero mega mosque’.”

I later learned during a conversation with Seth Faison from the Sitrick and Company PR agency (which assisted the Cordoba Project with media relations and strategic counsel on a pro bono basis) that the public attack on the Cordoba Mosque project was initiated by a right-wing alliance formed by representatives of the Tea Party movement, Fox News and the well-known, conservative blogger Pamela Geller.

Imam Feisal was outside of the country when the controversy sparked and delayed any response until he returned to the USA and arranged to meet with Seth Faison. In the meantime, Faison was selected by the Cordoba team to help out as the point person. This, as any young PR student appreciates, created a fertile ground for the full success of that rebranding exercise about which Imam Feisal now complains.

Post controversy and rebranding

Today he is much more savvy and attentive to the value of public relations, which once again confirms that organizations discover that value mostly after unanticipated crises. In fact, this was one reason why he agreed be a keynote speaker at the first global Muslim PR Congress last December.

Today he is one of the undisputed public leaders of the moderate global Muslim community.

New projects and public relations

While the Cordoba mosque continues to face some hindrances (“It is a work in progress,” was his quiet response), Imam Feisal is passionately pursuing two other major projects. And this time, the Imam indicates, he’s conceiving and adopting a public relations policy from the start.

His soon-to-be-released book is one vivid example, and surely it will be a big media hit. But the public relations initiatives are not solely related to third-party media validation.

“One of my objectives,” states the Imam, “Is to ‘unpack’ and argue with the highly differentiated Islamic community the components of what constitutes an American Islamic identity. I have learned very well from the Ground Zero Mosque Project that success comes only by ‘shifting the discourse.’ We need to form a movement capable of convincing the many facets of American Muslims that they have more things in common to positively stand up for than the few loud and desperate extremists, fundamentalist and terrorists.”

I offered that the term convince derives from the Latin vincere cum, which is quite a different concept from that of persuasion. The Imam seemed to agree with this distinction. “By shifting the ‘discourse’ and counting on moderate Muslims to ‘spread the word,’ then it will be possible to constitute a specific and well-characterized Muslim identity in this country, very different from the one which unfortunately has become so stereotyped in this last decade, “ declares Imam Feisal.

The second project is of a more global nature and has to do with helping to develop and affirm an active global coalition of Muslim moderates from all countries.

It was very gratifying to receive confirmation from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf that in these initiatives he taken to heart lessons learned from the Cordoba House and Ground Zero experience, meaning that public relations policies and programs certainly will be amongst the pillars in both projects.

Imam Feisal Abd Rauf can be found on Twitter.

BIG BOYS GONE BANANAS!* photo by Anna Sivertsson. Used with permission of WG Films.

An exclusive interview with Swedish documentary filmmaker, Fredrik Gertten, about his 2009 BANANAS! film and his currently screening (at film festivals around the world) Big Boys Gone Bananas!* documentary.

In particular, we talk about Dole’s aggressive corporate public relations and media campaign, which worked to prevent WG Film’s BANANAS! documentary from screening in the USA on multiple fronts (including Swedish media).

“In 2009, Fredrik Gertten’s documentary, BANANAS!, chronicling a lawsuit against controversial food giant Dole was set to premiere at the Los Angeles Film Festival. Dole responded with an aggressive media and public relations campaign to quash the film’s release and discredit the reputation of the filmmakers. The filmmaking team behind BANANAS! refused to be bullied, filing a counter-suit and launching its own media strategy. Their point was that no one suing them had even seen the film! A true documentarian, Gertten picks up his camera again to capture his fight for free speech. Big Boys Gone Bananas!* is an in-depth case study of an independent filmmaker’s David and Goliath battle with a corporate machine whose financial and political influence must be exposed. Lynne Crocker, Hot Docs 2012 screening schedule

Please explain the meaning behind the film’s title, Big Boys Gone Bananas!*.

The film is coming from Sweden, a country where we believe the “big ones” should be good—“If you are very strong, you must be very kind,” declares our famous fictional heroine, Pippi Longstocking. So when the biggest fruit company in the world refuses to help workers that have been harmed and attacks filmmakers documenting that fact, we decided that Dole has “gone bananas.” This is a bad thing.

Following the (reopening of the renovated) Bloor Cinema screening for Hot Docs stakeholders, you did a Skype Q and A from Uruguay (where your film was playing at a film festival). Early on you indicated this documentary was made in a transparent manner. What did you mean by that?

When we first realized Dole was attacking us, we began to publish everything on our website: all pro-Dole articles, all Dole letters and all legal documents. Potential audiences and interested individuals could find out opinions from both sides by visiting our site. On the Dole site there was only one side of the story.

We were transparent; Dole and its PR agency were not.

Listening to the various interview subjects in Big Boys Gone Bananas!*, one gets the sense that faith in Corporate America, its compliant/weakened media and the cherished First Amendment (i.e., freedom of expression) were fundamentally shaken. Is this impression true?

Dole attacked us with full aggression and with scare tactics that definitely made a deep impact. Sending out cease and desist letters and suing people might be something that is more common in the USA.

But the other part of its strategy might happen—and probably does happen—in many other countries relating to crisis management. Most large corporations and their PR agencies have crisis management on the menu. A part of this role is to make any critics of a company look stupid and to spin a tale so that the focus shifts away from the damaging story. Dole did that very well. But this is not only about Dole. I am certain that Canadian, Swedish, German, French, etc., companies would do the same. I think we make life a bit too simple if we consider this a USA-only disease.

Recently a survey was published in Sweden where journalists indicated they had less time to spend on researching and writing articles in 2012 than five years earlier. On the other hand, PR consultants said they had more time to work on things to promote to journalists than they had five years ago. I believe this pattern is international in scope: with journalists having less time, life is made easier if a PR consultant wants to help create news stories.

The chilling effect of showing aggression works even better when traditional media have financial problems, as editors are less eager to take on fights. I think that’s likely what happened when BANANAS!* got attacked.

Your film has an American hero in your lawyer, with the delightful name of Lincoln Bandlow. (He specializes in quintessentially PR-oriented areas such as copyright infringement, defamation, right of publicity, right of privacy, trademark infringement and related claims). Was he essential to the final outcome of the lawsuit?

Lincoln Bandlow is a great lawyer. But he was also adamant that there was nothing to sue. All we really needed was for the assigned judge to watch our BANANAS!* documentary and see first-hand that Dole had filed a SLAPP lawsuit, which is a lawsuit only intended to stop free speech.

From your point of view, do corporate/agency Swedish public relations differ from that of American, in terms of strategy, tactics and tone?

Swedish PR practitioners and lobbyists tell me that this would never happen in Sweden. But isn’t that what all PR people say when a colleague is doing a bad job?

We can never check whether the code of ethics of a PR firm is being followed if there is no need to disclose clients. If we are talking about crisis management, when you have a client that has done something really stupid and you are paid to attack their critics, what can you do? Resign or do the dirty job.

I suspect PR agencies in Sweden and Canada also quite often decide to take the dirty job. In fact, dirty jobs offer more billable hours. Many more.

What do you think was the turning point in terms of support for BANANAS!*, particularly from Swedish media, businesses and citizens? Was it blogger Alfonse Allende calling for a boycott of Dole products at the Max Hamburgers chain? Or maybe screening the film for the Swedish Parliament (which must have been an international film first)?

Swedish blogger Alfonse Allende, who called for a boycott of Dole products at Max Hamburgers. Photo by Stefan Berg and used with permission from WG Films.

For sure the turning point regarding my film was when blogger Alfonse Allende walked into Max Hamburgers in Malmö, Sweden and found himself served a Dole Fruit Salad. But remember, it’s not his blogging about a boycott that is the most important thing: Max Hamburgers has polished its brand to be something representing “Swedish values”—green, fair and modern. Allende blogged about the company as a customer and challenged its green façade.

The good thing about Max Hamburgers was that its CEO knew what the brand represented and decided to stop selling Dole Fruit Salad. So when Allende blogged the story it was “breaking news,” which was easily picked up… as my film and I was already receiving a lot of attention. Journalists were dying to get new angles to the BANANAS!* story.

Never in its 43-year-old history has Max Hamburgers received more media attention than at this time. And it has been in some heavy fights before—good and bad.

The screening in Parliament was also very important. When journalists are lazy they quote both sides and at that point they’ve done their job: “Dole says this, the filmmakers says that.” In that version of media storytelling Dole comes out quite well—it’s like we were evenly matched. We were not.

After watching BANANAS!*, the members of Parliament decided, “If trade is global, so too must journalism be global.” A Swedish journalist/filmmaker has the right to tell a story about an American corporation producing something that we consume in Sweden. Suing us (WG Film) was an attack on free speech in Sweden as well.

This made it much harder for Dole clients in Sweden to say that couldn’t take sides in a legal fight between Dole and WG Film; now those clients had to decide if they were in favour of free speech.

That certainly shifted the focus in a good way. From that moment Dole was losing, at least in Sweden.

In some ways Big Boys Gone Bananas!* is like an incredibly strategic PR strike regarding the artistic and punitive financial threats made against producer Margarete Jangård and you. Was this a reality at the front end when deciding to make the film?

Every film is a long journey. First of all, it was my journey in trying to understand what Dole did, including how they did it.

I was confused and fairly shocked when the American media made me the villain—I was the one they tried to trap with smart questions! It was really quite aggressive. And the biggest assaults came from journalists who hadn’t seen my film before asking questions.

Coming from a journalism background, I found this interesting. I understood that this is the sign of the times and that it was something we must talk about. In our case, though film making.

Some of your commentators (e.g., Sven Hughes, Ken Silverstein and Tim Burt) talked about the movement of large numbers of journalists and former politicos into public relations. Do you think this is inherently dangerous when it comes to freedom of expression and manipulation of the media, government and legal bodies or simply something we all must become more cognizant about?

When a lot of good people are “for sale” to one with the deepest pockets it’s always scary. This is especially true because the PR industry refuses to disclose their various clients.

Companies who buy strategic communication have an agenda—political clients probably the most often. As citizens we should have the right to see who is paying to create changes in society.

In Sweden we have a former prime minister working for a PR firm. I think it’s important for us to know who employs him. And that goes for many other high-ranking people who have changed sides.

Team video conference: Publicist David Magdael shows the front page of the LA Business Journal. "Documentary turns Dole foe, into hero despite evidence that he fabricated facts of court case." (From left) Fredrik Gertten, David Magdael. Photo by Ovoo and used with permission of WG Films

It was never my intention to take on any multinational when I started to research BANANAS!*. It was simply a very intriguing story.

I am a filmmaker. I am looking for good stories. In making a documentary the biggest challenge is creating something that will have an impact on its audience. I am not, and will never be, a corporation hunter.

When I make a documentary film I must do it as well as I can, thinking of my audience. All of the other aspects and challenges come later.

Regarding promoting documentary films, I think Burma VJ (a Danish/Swedish film, which your production company had some involvement) was one of the first films to set up a Twitter account—and it followed me! And for Big Boys Gone Bananas!*, I was quite intrigued and impressed to discover your blog site established a page dedicated to my related tweets. Do you think Swedish filmmakers are making better use of social media than most?

WG Film is a Swedish production company that only produces international documentaries. This means we need to find new ways to spread the word. We listen and get inspiration from all over the place.

We have much more to learn. Especially when it comes to making money, as it’s extremely hard to survive in this filmmaking game. And as we lost almost $200,000 dollars in this legal fight with Dole we need to be even better in the future. We’re doing this by opening up doors, including through social media, so that our audience can support us.

We are also interested in PR agencies that would like to help us to promote the film on a pro bono basis. In Canada that would be really important, because the film has already secured a theatrical release….

Where has it screened so far and has it won any awards?

The film is currently playing at festivals all over the world and it is being really well received. We won two great awards in Prague, one of them being an audience award—this was a good thing. It also won the Grand Jury Prize for Best Documentary at the Sarasota Film Festival.

Finally, is the 2009 BANANAS!* documentary any closer to receiving American film distribution as a result of Big Boys Gone Bananas!*?

We hope so.

* * *

[When I picked up my Hot Docs tickets I checked and there were still some tickets available at the Wednesday, May 2nd, screening. The film also opens for a commercial release at Hot Docs' Bloor Cinema on May 11th. JG]

If you want to see or hear Fredrik Gertten, here is a link to the CBC Radio The Current segment he did on May 2nd (audio) and the Business News Network (BNN on CTV) interview (video).

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Fredrik Gertten is a Swedish film maker and journalist. He has worked as a journalist for newspapers, radio and television in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe (during the 1980s and 1990s). In 1995, he published the travel book Ung man söker världen (Young man looking for the World) through the publisher Gong Gong förlag.

He wrote for the newspaper Arbetet from 1990 until it ceased publication in 2000 and for Kvällsposten in 2001-2003. He has also been the producer of documentaries and entertainment shows for the Swedish television channels SVT, TV 4 and TV 3. For his complete Filomgraphy see IMDb. Follow his personal Twitter account.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

For more info about Big Boys Go Bananas!* check out these links:

Big Boys Gone Bananas!* Trailer

Official site/blog

Big Boys Gone Bananas!* Twitter account (hashtags #bigboysgonebananas and #wgfilm)

Facebook account

International screening schedule

Fundraising page on KickStarter

Also see article from the Canadian Journalism Foundation’s J-Source publication:

Big Boys Gone Bananas!: a fight for the truth and freedom of speech

At a Sustainable Conversations event earlier this week (organised by Kantar Media), I started to think about the impact on both public relations and journalism of ongoing communications changes. In particular, it is clear neither occupation can maintain their traditionally exclusive roles as ‘gatekeepers’ in filtering and controlling the flow of information that is communicated to publics.

With anyone and everyone potentially able to express an opinion and be listened to, many of the taken-for-granted aspects of the PR-media relationship are challenged, opening the gate with some interesting outcomes.

To those of us who have been engaged in digital communications for sometime, this is nothing new. But it was clear at this event that for mainstream media and many of those working in strategic organisational communications, the implications of the disruption to the normal modus operandi have only just hit home. Here are a few points from the debate on the day that I would like to explore in conversation here.

The world is complicated and messy

It was fascinating to finally hear researchers acknowledge this fact. This is important because dominant communications theories, and research perspectives, tend to present the world in a positivist way where linear processes and quantitative data help simplify people and trends. As a result, decisions are made in organizations and by individuals on the basis of information that does not really describe how the world works.

As an example, much of the communications activity by journalists and PR practitioners in relation to car purchasing is based on data which presents an average of 2-3 months between someone becoming aware of a need and closing the deal. The familiar, hierarchy of effects type of model that shows a nice, orderly flow of cognition to behaviour over a predictable period of time. Well, in reality, that only applies to very few people, even if the average still comes out at this length. There are a significant group of people today making their car purchasing decisions in 1-2 weeks, with another major grouping getting caught in a decision loop that extends their buying period into many months. Digital communications help both of these groups – although the latter are perhaps none the wiser despite, or maybe because, of the amount of information they can access.

The analogy of a game of snakes and ladders was used by Andy Turton – Global Development Director, TNS Global Automotive Practice. If you’re not familiar with the game, the idea is that communications can offer a ladder up the decision making process, or serve to set you back several steps as you slip back down a snake. So what does this mean for PR communications? It reinforces the need to be personal and avoid making general assumptions, that rely on data if it doesn’t allow you to look for nuances, variations, differences and most importantly, the meaning of information. It’s about intelligence not simply statistics.

People think in pictures

Today’s journalists and PR practitioners are primarily verbal communicators. We like words and writing things down. But, as the rise of Pinterest has shown – aided by our mobile devices all being equipped with cameras – people are increasingly able to capture their thoughts and express themselves using imagery. TNS had used this in research that asked people to diarise their car buying decision making by taking photographs – which revealed how much visual impressions affect our thinking and behavioural patterns.

It was also interesting to hear from Chas Hallett, editor-in-chief of What Car? magazine (owned by Haymarket), who talked about how good photographs drive interest in editorial coverage. Indeed, data shared at another event a few weeks ago by Newspress, which manages the media websites for most UK based car companies, revealed that press releases supported by a greater number of images get more attention and greater usage. Again, perhaps not a new observation – but I’m surprised at the number of PR practitioners and organisations which are only just looking at infographics and other visual devices as part of their communications. I believe there is huge potential here to shift corporate communications much more into the visual – including video – and this requires PR practitioners and journalists to gain new skills sets. As Chas said, when recruiting motoring journalists, he is looking for those who are comfortable in front of a camera, and behind it, not just at a keyboard.

Digital is driving future communications

Here the thinking relates to how new platforms (including tablets) are influencing how information is communicated from the outset, not as an afterthought. With more and more ways of accessing information (and at another event I attended recently, there was heated debate about adapting to mobile trends), content can’t be clunky. The more traditional means of communicating are being affected by the design and other changes that are necessary to make the most of multi-media and transmedia opportunities. In part, this indicates the death of long-form journalism (and certainly the 100 page new car press pack of my early career is no more). There is more information available, but it has to be presented increasingly in bite-sized means. Those of us who like to write long, need to consider if our passion is sustainable. But the good news is that the skills we require in writing punchy headlines, quotes and so on reflect a strength that is welcomed in social media communications. Brevity is important – but equally, the dominance of digital makes words critically valuable. Journalists – like PR practitioners – need to be aware of how search engines operate and balance the tricks required with quality writing. This extends into the earlier point also about imagery as people increasingly find YouTube and other visual stimuli are presented in Google searches, often above text summaries. Tagging and emerging visual search technologies demand our attention.

The personal is public and vice versa

Again not a new topic for us at PR Conversations, but something that many professional communicators are just realising. How do you balance the needs of maintaining trusted brand status (either personally or for an organisation) in an always on, open gate world? Are you prepared to work 24/7/365 and how are issues such as flaming attacks being handled by organisations to protect their employees? Too many issues to explore here, but definitely relevant when you act as a gatekeeper in an environment when anyone and everyone can be talking about you.

People today are different – but the same

Looking at trends in modern living, and expectations of younger people, challenges the metaphors that professional communicators have successfully ingrained in the promotional society. Henry Tucker, Director, The Future Company, explained how car companies in the last century used their marketing communications (including public relations) to influence societal and individual expectations that they could be free and independent in their lives. Although the open road of the car advert is less like our experience than urban gridlock and increasing cost of ownership (UK petrol panic anyone?), these promotional messages underpin the way we interact online. He said that individuals view their social media networks as an extension of their personal space and presence in society. We are looking at technology, brands, products and services as needing to fulfill such needs and fit into our lifestyles – we’re not keen on compromise and want freedom in how we do things (even if our wants are complicated, messy and contradictory).

In countries where people are becoming more affluent, there is no linear progression up a social scale, but expectations that reflect how personal lifestyles are being affected. Likewise, the ‘lost generation’ of young people have found the world is not how they were promised it would be – and respond with decreased loyalty to the old ways of doing things. Or do they? At the same time as this distrust is often expressed about brands, governments and so on, people are turning to others as trusted sources of information. That is less and less likely to be the traditional gatekeeper, but it was interesting to hear that Rogers’ diffusion of innovation may still have some relevance. Discussing the launch of the Toyota Prius and other issues relating to communicating complex issues (environment, technology, etc), there were evidently still innovators and early adopters who pave the way – and increasingly influence – those who are more cautious and likely to follow.

Tying up all these points, it is clear that as communicators we are faced with many challenges and opportunities – that people are thinking more personally, but trust those they let within their complicated and messy worlds – that they are able to express themselves more and more in visual terms and this is done on a global platform (reaching out to personal networks) at potentially any time of day or night.

So whether you are a quick decider or need someone to help you through your decision process, the chances are, you are no longer reliant on the traditional PR/journalist gatekeeper. Whether or not this closes the door on these occupations is debatable. So what do you think?

You don’t have to dig too far to find criticisms of public relations as involving lying and other less than ethical practices. The normal response from the industry is denial, citation of codes of conduct and finger pointing at isolated ‘others’.

But is lying really an absolute ‘do or don’t do’ matter? In reality, doesn’t everyone tell lies to some extent on a regular basis? So as professional communicators, doesn’t that mean PR practitioners trade in a currency of lies?

Let’s not lie about it.  Shouldn’t we examine the criticisms in more depth – and more importantly, consider how lying does fit into ethical PR practice?

First to the criticisms – there’s an interesting argument here. As PR practitioners are inherently partisan – that is, we’re paid to advocate a particular perspective – our communications are biased. This is extended to mean we cannot be trusted; we are unethical and tell lies. But surely if we are open about the nature of our communications, then our perspective reflects the truth as relates to our employing organization. Others may not like what we say, but that doesn’t make it untrue.

It isn’t a matter that you cannot believe PR practitioners because we are paid to say something. Rather, it should be clear that what we are saying is a particular perspective – you may agree or not, but let’s engage in dialogic or dialectic communications and examine the truths at the basis of our positions. We are not alone in presenting a good image as most people want to be thought well of – after all, isn’t that good manners? Do you share your worst habits with strangers?

Rather than viewing all PR practitioners and their communications as lies, critics need to look more deeply and rightly expose practices where lying is evident.  For example, in a recent PR Conversations post, Nigel Hawkes questioned the use of statistics by PR practitioners. Here we often see deliberate selection of facts, obfuscation and pseudo-science – yes lies. But does that mean every statistic issued by PR practitioners is a lie? Lies, damned lies and PR seems to be exaggerating (ironically).

Beyond these common criticisms, there is an argument for ethical lying in PR practice. Here we’re talking about utilitarian ethics – that is, making a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive for a good reason. This may be in anticipation of consequences that seek to minimise harm or maximise benefits. Or perhaps, the reason is a noble lie – in response to the ‘does my bum look big in this’ type of question. Sometimes in public relations, we are legally or otherwise constrained from saying something, and so tell some form of lie in response. Even the comforting, “I can’t tell you at present” or avoiding questions can be construed as lying. It is, however, part of the reality of working in PR.

Of course there can be negative consequences from lying – as PR’s reputation proves. I’m also not arguing that lying is, or should be, the normal means of communications in PR practice (or elsewhere in society). Trust and truth are closely related, but part of trust means accepting that sometimes people (and organisations) do lie – but their reputation should establish that they would have a good reason for doing so.

Being sceptical about communications is also a good thing – rather than accepting everything (no matter the source), people should ask questions, consider the veracity of a position and test facts and other statements. That’s at the heart of critical thinking; encouraging people to think for themselves and make informed decisions. In public relations, this means acknowledging the competencies of those with whom we communicate as active participants, not passive audiences to be influenced by what we tell them. Exposing our statements to be tested should make us more particular about knowing the source of our claims and being able to justify if we take a particular stance which others may find questionable.

Bok presents the test of publicity – here interestingly, the expertise of PR practitioners may be relevant. The scheme of applied publicity involves considering whether a lie would survive the appeal for justification to reasonable persons. This means reflection personally on the implications of telling a lie – and being aware of the likely response of the public to exposure of the lie.

In public relations, we are used to making decisions about public reactions and assessing the consequences of particular actions. This should include an ethical dimension, which could be based on compliance with laws, rules, codes and so forth. It may also need to be more nuanced and reflect that sometimes adhering to the rules will have negative outcomes – and justify a lie which could, in itself, withstand the air of publicity.

This takes us to a second trading card of public relations: secrets. We may consciously use secrets as a currency in our work. For example, we may calculate the benefits of offering an exclusive story to a particular journalist or media organization. In an age of social media, keeping secrets is more difficult, but there may be good reasons for keeping quiet or managing how information is communicated. Timing is a key element of PR communications and this requires keeping information secret until the optimum point to announce or release it.

It is this secretive nature of public relations that again impacts negatively on its reputation. Michie for example, called us ‘invisible persuaders‘ and it is this lack of understanding of what is involved in public relations that enables people to claim it involves various nefarious purposes.

Not that PR isn’t partially responsible here too. The practice of over-promising in pitching to clients (or bosses), is another form of lying which does what we can achieve a disservice. There is no secret, magical approach to public relations that miraculously will deliver results. PR cannot turn a pig’s ear into a silk purse (although it can be polished a little – without mixing my metaphors!). We cannot guarantee to turn absolute disasters into unmitigated success – and indeed, trying to do so may well result in our own credibility sliding further into the mud.

Let’s be honest about what we can achieve and the full extent of our currency in doing so. We may well trade in lies and secrets – sometimes, when absolutely necessary. That doesn’t make us any more unreliable or dishonest than any other group of humans on the planet. I have told lies in my PR (and personal) life, I’ve also accepted others’ lies even when I know they are untrue. I am party to many secrets (past and present) that I prefer not to share publicly. And I’m sure that I’ll use lies and secrets in my future career. Anyone else wish to confess – or am I the only honest PR practitioner?

Ira Basen, producer and presenter of Occupy Next

New CBC Radio documentary: Occupy Next

We’re interrupting our regularly scheduled PR Conversations programming to tell you the exciting news that that Ira Basen has another documentary, airing on Sunday, April 1st (no joke) on The Sunday Edition.

I asked Ira to tell me what this one was about:

“Occupy Next looks first at the rather extraordinary impact the Occupy movement has had on American politics and culture in its first six months. It then explores where the movement plans to go from here, focusing on its plan for a “general strike” in New York City on May 1.

It faces external political and logistical challenges, but possibly the even bigger challenge comes from inside, where its own processes and ideology might get in the way of it forging the kind of alliances it needs to accomplish its objectives.”

Occupy Next will be broadcast on CBC Radio One’s The Sunday Edition on Sunday, April 1, 2012, in the third hour (approximately 11:05 a.m. ET) in the various North American time zones. It is 50 minutes long. It can also be streamed live from the CBC Radio web page.

Update: now available as a pop-up audio file on a dedicated CBC website page.  Featured Documentary: Occupy Next

* * *

Ira Basen’s earlier documentaries:

• Spin Cycles: spin, the spinners and the spun (July 2007)
• News 2.0: The Future of News in an Age of Social Media (October 2009)
• Engineering Search: The Story of the algorithm that changed the world (December 2010)
• Monetizing Mommy-hood (January 2012)

Op-Ed by Enrica Orecchia

Italian women in PR: challenges and opportunities

The gender-balance question in our PR discipline continues to be a topic of interest, as evidenced by a recent poll and discussion in LinkedIn’s Public Relations Professionals Group, “Why are there more women than men in PR?” That debate inspired me to write my own blog post. And because I translated into Italian some blog post comments by Heather Yaxley and Judy Gombita, I was invited to detail for readers of PR Conversations what it is like to be a woman working in public relations in Italy. I was intrigued at the idea of covering common ground and a particular set of traits found in Italian women working in the field today, so I accepted. And I began to ponder: Are there any meaningful differences from women working in other areas? And what about from men working in the similar positions?

Recent (Italian) studies on the subject

From 2010 research by Ferpi (the Italian public relations association), it emerged that in the last 40 years the percentage of female professionals belonging to Ferpi has increased from 15 to 57.4 per cent of the membership. Many of Ferpi’s female members are entrepreneurs; others are communications managers in large corporations, many of them multinational companies.

These numbers reveal that women working in PR are far more numerous than those working in professions more established than public relations, such as lawyers, engineers, architects, doctors and notaries, all of which have female association representation below 50 per cent.

A second research study was conducted in 2009 by Udine University student, Daniela Mian, for her public relations studies. Mian worked on her degree thesis with Professor Giampietro Vecchiato, an influential Ferpi member. The results were shared in January 2011.

The study stresses that, in managing a company, female employees:

• follow more rigorous criteria
• employ more adequate risk/benefit ratios; and
• use emotional intelligence and empathy

…thus being more capable in communicating with the different corporate stakeholders.

Additionally, female managers carry on a leadership model based on sharing, negotiation and inclusion. They are better at multitasking, complexity management and problem solving, as generally they have to interpret multiple roles in life.

Owing to these attributes, often women bring more added value to the PR role than men. And according to the study, this is the reason for their being given responsible roles more frequently than women employed in other corporate sectors.

More findings

A further detail that emerged from Mian’s work is that women deliberately choose to study public relations, not only because it is employment with an appealing range of responsibilities and activities, but also because fewer men select the profession; therefore, the possibilities of being discriminated against are lower.

Less encouraging was that only 46 per cent of the PR practitioners interviewed (both female and male) report directly to the CEO, while the remaining practitioners occupy lower ranks in the corporate hierarchy. This demonstrates that public relations is not yet situated as a strategic function in many Italian-based companies, i.e., not considered to add to the bottom line. It follows, logically, that because men prefer more “influential” positions (i.e., finance, sales and even marketing), fewer of them apply for PR positions, allowing females to determine this career path has smaller numbers of male counterparts as obstacles to promotions.

In my opinion, females working in PR face the same challenges as women working in other areas—such as balancing work and family above all. As the mother of a seven-year-old daughter, I can attest to this.

Another challenge: there may be a reduced competition by men, but still women’s professional success is made more difficult by mostly being assigned operative (or tactical) work.

How can Italian women address this?

A first priority that PR women should address is contributing towards developing a communications culture inside organizations, through value-added work that moves public relations towards being considered a strategic function. This will empower the women who hold these positions.

Effectively, this would create more work opportunities, as companies begin to realize that they cannot do without communicating with various stakeholders on an ongoing basis. Because women constitute the majority of students in communications and public relations programs, these enhanced positions would mostly go to them.

Cultural challenges

The second issue women should address is increasing their personal empowerment.

This a cultural problem and one with ancient roots. While over the last century Italian women are fortunate enough to have attained fundamental, legislated rights, they still lack what can be called the “soft” rights. By this I mean making their profile and presence weigh as much as men, such as being treated with respect and consideration and having their requests met.

Feminist activism alone cannot take care of this “soft” rights imbalance. With the protection of laws (obtained thanks to feminists and increasing numbers of females in the workplace) women must take responsibility for the next steps ahead and personally work towards having their rights respected in reality, not simply written on paper.

This is especially true in workplaces, where women tend to take it for granted that they will be treated with the same treatment as men, in regards to career advancement, training opportunities and salaries.

Why do they take this for granted?

Statistics show that, traditionally, Italian female students score higher than their male counterparts, both in earlier schooling and at university. As a consequence, they tend to expect the same results in the corporate world.

Big mistake.

Unfortunately for these young women, other rules (both known and unspoken) apply in the workplaces, which are not so advantageous for women.

Because of the upbringing young Italian women receive, through both their families and at school, they have difficulties in understanding these unwritten rules and expected manners of conduct. For example:

1. Girls are taught to be quiet and unforthcoming.
2. They are told that asking for their needs to be met is not proper behaviour—that it is ungraceful.
3. They are encouraged to be modest and adopt an indirect way of speaking, as well as to keep a low profile at all times.

When young women finally land jobs, unless their temperaments are naturally straightforward and bold, in time they adopt the same behavioural style as the majority of women already in the workplace. They rein back more assertive, business-oriented behaviour and are kept back from promotions as a consequence.

By comparison, men who have received a dissimilar upbringing and learned a very different set of expectations altogether, step up and receive the benefit of the prevalent workplace environment, in terms of career status, workplace treatment and the like.

The “girls” factor

A further, more subtle form of discrimination is treating women like “girls,” including the language used to refer to them. The worst part of this equation is when the career-limiting habit is reinforced by women themselves.

In Nice Girls Don’t Get the Corner Office: 101 Unconscious Mistakes Women Make That Sabotage Their Careers—an extraordinary book I strongly recommend all working woman read—its American writer and consultant, Lois P. Frankel, points out that quite frequently women, “like to be considered as nice chicks.”

According to Frankel, many working women prefer to emphasize their physical assets, rather than having their competence, abilities and experience stand out. The consequence is an unprofessional behaviour that penalizes women, even when they are capable and do great work.

Though she wrote it to delineate the current state of female Corporate America, Frankel’s bestseller is eerily similar to how many Italian women conduct themselves on a daily basis in the workplace. Women who lack this kind of self-awareness are their own worst enemy, as they sabotage years of hard work and advocacy to achieve experience, competence and respect. Consequently, it is both ironic and sad to hear these same women complain about not receiving the employment opportunities and promotions they “deserve.”

Moving forward

It is up to us—Italians and other nationalities—to become aware of these underlying issues and behavioural expectations and to fix them. That is, if we want to start significantly improving our own work conditions, particularly when it comes to opportunities in public relations (where we predominate in numbers), and contribute towards improving the status of all women.

A female professional who secures advantages for herself—be it a salary increase, greater responsibilities, a higher budget for her team or whatever it is (provided she does not do obtain these things at the expense of another woman)—automatically raises the level of all of her “sisters.” I offer up this challenge to all female employees—because this does not need to stop at the public relations management function. I hold out an even larger responsibility and task: thanks to our relationship-building abilities, opportunities to reach various publics and have our “messages” reach a wide variety of recipient, we can work towards widening the spectrum and promoting the need for female equality in other areas of the workplace in terms of being valued as employees.

As an in-house practitioner in a small company, on a daily basis I have to address many of the issues described above. Companies in smaller Italian cities and towns consider communication as an “accessory” function, to the extent that sometimes I feel it will be years before any real transformation happens. But I am committed to making sure change does occur, as my personal contribution to the Italian PR profession. In order to ensure the debate around the importance of communication continues, as well as my own growth in the discipline, I have very recently joined Ferpi.

In future I would like to start my own professional services agency, focusing on public relations. At present these type of services are mostly provided by PR agencies in large cities. This is discouraging for small, local entrepreneurs. If companies can find quality in communication, regionally, through smaller agencies, they will begin to see the real value of public relations and communication management.

Another recent study (also in Italian) details Italian women’s lower salaries and reduced career opportunities (February 2012).

____________________________________________________________________________________

Enrica Orecchia is an Italian public relations practitioner who has worked for more than 15 years as a in-house practitioner in a small-medium enterprise (SME) in the North-West Italy province, where she manages all aspects of communication.

A former tour leader, translator, teacher and journalist she chose public relations as the profession that best satisfied her thirst for relating and communicating in a variety of ways, as well as a curiosity for everything happening in the world around her.

Since 2006, on her Italian-language blog, L’officina della comunicazione, Enrica Orecchia has written about communications and PR, with a particular focus on small enterprise issues.

Involved in a couple of professional associations in her home town of Alessandria, she recently joined Ferpi (Federazione Relazioni Pubbliche Italiana).

Online she can be found on Linkedin and Twitter and blogging at L’officinadellacomunicazione.

Are you looking for a career move or new opportunity in public relations? Judging by my own observations of the use of hashtag #PRjob on Twitter, there are plenty of opportunities around for a change of direction, as well as work placement and first jobs.

What isn’t clear is how these jobs differ, if at all, from those traditionally offered in public relations. The classic Dozier & Broom model proposes practitioners occupy technician or management roles, emphasising a hierarchical approach whereby a linear ladder is climbed by gaining experience from a junior entry route into PR management. This reflects a 20th century view of employment, particularly one where people tended to stay with one employer being promoted from account executive to account manager in consultancies or from PR officer to manager and director roles in-house (or less commonly moving upwards through both agency and in-house roles).

The concept of climbing the ladder remains current in public relations based on the perennial discussion of graduates and the new PRCA apprenticeship scheme in the UK. It is also evident in presenting training and education in terms of levels, based primarily on experience within the field. You are still perceived to need to work your way up in public relations.

There is an exception to this and that’s the employment of former journalists which makes headlines on a weekly basis in trade titles such as PR Week. Despite arguments that PR is increasingly a management function involving more than media relations (coupled with claims that mainstream media is less influential than in the past), journalism appears to still be viewed as jump up the ladder in a PR career. The reality is that there are probably dozens of hacks finding there is not an easy switch into PR – even if some clients remain impressed by a national newspaper or broadcaster on a CV, particularly if touted as important by PR agencies.

The PR-journalism relationship reveals another employment concept, that of the revolving door. Most evident in the political field, Pieczka notes the job-swap approach between those working in politics, public relations and journalism. She observes how “personal ties to powerful individuals can only help in a career in political PR” – something she terms “the circuit of power, that is a network of prestigious jobs in the media, public relations and politics”.

The notions of ladders and revolving doors relate also to encroachment in public relations. Lauzen observed this within organisations as the tendency for non-PR specialists to be put in charge of the function. This is compounded by organisations deciding their PR staff should report into the marketing department. The implication is that managing public relations is something that can be done without any specialist knowledge or experience. PR is simply a stop on the merry-go-round of a corporate career.

Within some sectors (such as my own experience with the motor industry), PR may reflect a specialist career path – occupied by former journalists, PR graduates and those coming from other functions. Here, we see a musical chairs game with people swapping from company to company. This frequently reflects limited carer opportunities within single organisations. Encroachment or restrictions on external recruitment sometimes act as stops or even snakes in the game.

With all these career concepts, it is clear that PR is seen as an open occupation, with few (if any) barriers to entry. Blurring boundaries with other functions can offer opportunities for PR practitioners to shift into marketing or other management roles. The future of PR careers is increasingly played out on a global stage – which may also require moves into managing other functions on the way to the boardroom. I’m surprised this doesn’t appear to happen more often, given that PR practitioners should have a wide set of competencies relevant to senior management. But perhaps PR practitioners are not perceived as having business acumen or other leadership skills.

Thinking beyond these classic perspectives of corporate-type careers (whether progressing upwards in organisations or consultancies), public relations offers other choices. There is an entrepreneurial dimension to public relations enabling practitioners to work in a freelance capacity or setting up their own consultancies.

Or maybe we need to be thinking in a totally different way. Will there even be careers in public relations going forwards – does the future belong to the hybrid worker (a term that both Judy Gombita and myself have adopted)? Is the current shift towards social media rather than traditional journalism going to result in a fundamental change to career opportunities? Those who talk about PR as content management or brand journalism seem to be proposing a specialist occupation. Will the future be organisations comprised of such specialists rather than hierarchies (as employees, consultants or embedded in organisations)? Or does this suggested role for PR represent a cul-de-sac with little opportunity to achieve strategic influence (or career choice) within organisations?

My own research into the origins of public relations careers identified an opportunistic nature in practitioners who responded to changing times. As such, we could claim that public relations is an adaptive occupation enabling those who are open to what is offered by the zeitgeist to create their own opportunities. This can seem exciting and perhaps inherently grabs the spirit of those drawn to public relations. It also challenges the idea presented by academics, employers and trade bodies that public relations is a profession with a linear career ladder to be climbed in a meritocratic manner. Instead, maybe we need to be more like free-runners who look to progress through the career environment by using speed, insight, self expression, innovation and creativity. What you know is still vitally important – as is who you know. But you need to think like an off-piste athlete practising efficient career movements around the obstacles offered by the modern employment environment. Parkour training anyone?

The PRoust Questionnaire provides a quick insight into a public relations practitioner’s interests and point of view, as well as his or her professional beliefs and values.

If you are not familiar with the original 19th-century Proust Questionnaire, please see details at the end of this post.

PRoust Questionnaire answers from Al Clarke:

1. What is your most striking characteristic as a PR practitioner?

Always open to new ideas and committed to help make things work.

2. What is your principal fault as a PR practitioner?

Impatience with people who haven’t understood we have been given two ears and one mouth for a reason…

3. What is your favourite occupation in PR?

Unlocking the door between the client’s objectives and their customers’ needs. Sounds trite, but this is the most exciting bit – combining experience with skill, strategy with tactics and helping people see the way forward.

4. Why do you work in PR?

I really like people…

5. What is your idea of PR nirvana?

Give me the toughest PR challenge and let me have a crack at it with people who are ready to give it a go..

6. What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery in PR?

Wasting time with people who don’t listen!

7. What qualities do you most admire in a PR practitioner?

People who actually deliver. If you claim to be able to do it, then do it. Simple, eh?

8. What qualities do you most dislike in a PR practitioner?

Shallow insincerity.

9. Who would you describe as a PR hero or villain?

PR hero is Paul Charles, former colleague in the BBC, then Virgin Atlantic Communications Director, then MD of Lewis PR and now runs his own PR agency. Really understands the media, the message and has the clout to make it all come together. Look and learn…

10. What do you most value in your professional contacts?

Engagement. Dreadful word and over used, but in this context it means – keeping in touch. If you have contacts, then keep in contact! Ask me if I can help – I can always say ‘no’, but you’ll be amazed how often I say ‘yes’!

11. Have you ever been influenced by a PR campaign?

FairFuel UK – campaign to reduce fuel duty in the UK. Saw the campaign, read the information, signed the petition, became advocate. Simple ad clear messages – great PR.

12. Where would you most like to practise PR?

I practice every day! One day I’ll get it right I hope…

13. Has a novel, film, play or other work of fiction ever influenced you as a PR practitioner?

Probably, but can’t think immediately. In the meantime you should watch Ronin again – the world’s best car chases.. see the petrol is still flowing in my veins!

14. Who do you think has great public relations?

Apple. Dyson. Ferrari. Virgin. All started by powerful, dominant leaders who recognised the power of third-party endorsement and worked it to their advantage.

15. Which real, historical or fictional person or brand would you like to give a reputation makeover?

I don’t believe in makeovers, so not interested in re-writing history. I work with people who are confident enough to understand the reality of their current situation and are ready to make the journey to where they want to be.

16. Who is your favourite writer?

Professor Google. You can’t beat a good search and learn from crowd sourcing!

One great communicator in the motoring world is John Simister – one of the UK’s best writers who can explain complex technical information in simple, fun ways.

17. What one thing is essential to your PR life?

Trusted friends. Very few of them…

18. Groucho Marx is quoted as saying he’d never join a club that would have him as a member. Which PR club, association or tribes do you belong to—and why?

Motor Industry Public Affairs Association (www.mipaa.com) the world’s largest network of professional motor industry communicators. The PRCA (www.prca.org.uk). The Institute of Directors (www.iod.com). The Institute of Direct and Digital Marketing (www.theidm.com).

Why so many? I join groups that I can learn from and contribute to – that’s what a community is all about. I am active in all of these groups, and if I cease to be I will leave.

19. Where do you most like to do your professional networking?

Martini style (if you’re under 35 search ‘Anytime, anyplace, anywhere’) – I love meeting people and finding out about them.

20. What’s the best career decision you ever made?

To quit a career in electronic engineering and make tea in a radio station. Brave / mad – depends on your perspective. I re-paid my student fees and started from the bottom again. It worked for me.

21. What skills and abilities do you think tomorrow’s PR leaders need?

Understand and develop three core skills.

Journalism – how to communicate in writing, audio and video.

Networking – how to meet other people and manage relationships in an open, professional manner – this is your reputation

Digital media – really understand how communication works across channels and platforms, not just superficial use of media tools

22. Which talent would you most like to have?

To drive like Raffaele di Simone, Ferrari’s talented test driver – calm, fast, skillful, and a gentleman

23. How would you like to end your PR career?

Spending more time transferring knowledge to others – what a waste of a life if you just stop one day and don’t pass on what you have learned?

24. How would you describe the current state of public relations?

We’re in a transitional phase. The days of the ‘dark arts’ when only people in PR understood what they did are (mercifully) nearly over. Social media are now revealing the power and value of clear, focused communication through third parties – i.e. PR.

25. What is your PR motto?

Let’s make it work

__________________________________________________________________________________

Al Clarke has more than 20 years experience working with blue chip organisations at the most senior level, and has a proven track record of delivering results through a positive, transparent, objective-driven approach. He is a respected, strategic marketing, PR and communications consultant based in Surrey, UK and elected Chairman of the Motor Industry Public Affairs Association Limited (MIPAA).  Previously, he was Commercial & Brand Director at Ferrari GB, Head of Communications at SMMT Ltd and a BBC radio presenter.  You can connect with Al, via LinkedIn, Google+ or Twitter (@AlClarkeLtd) – or his blog Let’s Make It Work

__________________________________________________________________________________

The PRoust Questionnaire was originally designed to reveal one’s personality. Its name and popularity as a form of interview has roots in the responses given by the French writer, Marcel Proust. His first set of responses came at the end of the nineteenth century, when he was still in his teens (from an English-language “confession album”).

For PR Conversations we have adapted this original idea with questions that offer a public relations’ perspective. It is fun to compare and contrast responses as the series grows. (See below.)

If you would like to be invited to complete our PRoust Questionnaire for posting on PR Conversations, please visit our Crowdsourcing suggestion form.

Earlier PRoust Questionnaire respondents:

- Léa Werthman

- Estelle de Beer

- Don Radoli

- Toni Muzi Falconi

- Richard Bailey

- Jane Jordan-Meier

- Nelly Benova

- Peter Stanton

- Mat Wilcox

- Anne Gregory

- Markus Pirchner

- Heather Yaxley

- Judy Gombita

Guest post by Nigel Hawkes.

Healthcare reform is controversial, as both the US and the UK have found. In Britain, a chorus of protest has been generated by a Bill to reform the National Health Service. Some of the most powerful interventions have come from the Royal Colleges – highly-esteemed bodies that exist to promote and improve the practice of different medical specialties.

I’ve been struck not by the positions taken, which are strongly opposed to the reforms, but by the evidence used to support them. The Royal College of General Practitioners asked its 44,000 members through its website whether the college should call for the withdrawal of the Bill. Just 3,120 responded (7 per cent), with 1,760 of them backing the call for withdrawal. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, in a similar poll, achieved an 11 per cent response rate.

It’s astonishing that bodies which rightly call for gold-standard evidence to determine what treatments are best for their patients should cite evidence as feeble as this in their attack on the health reforms. A response rate this low means that only the highly-motivated are bothering to respond, and they are those most likely to oppose the changes. In the RCGP survey, 1,223 respondents skipped the question altogether, which hardly suggests opposition is universal.

Mind you, I’ve known worse polls. The British Medical Association in Scotland made claims about the cost of alcohol-related conditions in general practice in the whole of Scotland based on a loosely-worded survey of just 3 per cent of practices, which selected themselves.

Polls, surveys, and research generally have a seductive attraction for those in PR. There’s no message that can’t be given greater impact by a well-chosen statistic or two. Unfortunately, too many PR professionals are shameless in the way they generate the figures, and too many journalists credulous in the way they report them. Online polling has made “surveys” easily-organised and cheap – who cares if they are nonsense?

Charities are among the worst offenders, apparently believing that the purity of their motives makes up for the inadequacies of their research. The one that has made me angriest recently is Dr Barnardo’s, which published a survey showing, it claimed, that adults believe British children are “feral”, “beginning to behave like animals” or “angry, violent and abusive”. This was based on a survey, conducted by a reputable polling company, which asked adult respondents: “Below are a number of comments made about young people in the UK. Could you tell us how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements?

It then offered three statements. 1. Children in this country are becoming feral 2. British children are beginning to behave like animals 3. The trouble with youngsters is that they are angry, violent and abusive.

All are strongly negative opinions. Respondents were not given the opportunity to respond to any positive views. Why did the charity provide such tendentious leading questions? So that it could present itself in a new advertising campaign as the true champion of children faced with an uncaring world. I can’t think of a better way to give research a bad name.

Sometimes the research conclusions are laughable, but it doesn’t prevent them from getting media coverage. Take the claim made last September by the PR and social media agency Umpf that more than half of UK pensioners use Facebook. Respondents for this survey were solicited by e-mail, so it only reached those who are already online. You cannot measure social media usage using an online method, because – obviously – it excludes those who aren’t online. In response to a question about this, Umpf said “We don’t think this would have skewed the results particularly.” How can they possibly know?

Bad surveys and dodgy polls are, of course, only one way in which research can be twisted. Here are a few more: selective quotation, “cherry-picking” the evidence, careful choice of a starting point for comparisons, making claims of a trend on the basis of a couple of years’ data, plotting graphs that lack a zero on the vertical axis, misleading extrapolations, omitting data points that don’t fit in the hope that nobody notices, choosing the extreme number from a range rather than the most likely number, using means when medians would be more appropriate, “salami-slicing” the data (if the unemployment rate doesn’t fit with what you want to say, look at the unemployment rate for women, or for young people, or for young women, or for young women in part-time work – there’s bound to be one that will satisfy.)

Research is a valuable, powerful tool. Used properly it can amplify almost any message. Misused, it can drag the profession into disrepute.

Nigel Hawkes is a science and health journalist who has worked for The Observer and The Times. Since 2008 he has been Director of Straight Statistics (@straight_stats), a campaign group for the honest presentation and use of statistical data by government, the media, industry and advertisers. He is a columnist and regular contributor to British Medical Journal.