Search Results for 'pr and lobbying'

Essential Skills for PR Pros: Dealing with People Who Are Angry and Those Who Lie

Anger

You don’t have to be an Ivy Leaguer or a scholar to be an excellent PR pro; however, a good PR person shouldn’t ignore (and in fact should seek out) sound research that offers sharp insights on skills crucial to public relations work. This post is about a few bodies of research from the Ivy Leagues and other academia that can benefit all PR pros.

We’ve written about some of these snarky public relations issues in the past; these resources offer deep thoughts and strategies to deal with some of PR’s most troublesome situations.

Dealing with an Angry Public

For years, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sponsored a joint, intensive professional development experience by this name. We first heard about it we believe in the 1980s. For a lofty price, this seminar has led participants through training experiences in persuasion, negotiation, crisis analysis and problem solving—all skills any mature PR professional should have. After examining no doubt hundreds of corporate public relations crises—some well known, others lesser known, but still highly volatile—seminar leaders, Lawrence Susskind and Patrick Field, went on to publish a book of the same name in 1996. Needless to say, these are critical skills for professionals in public affairs, issues advocacy, and reputation management; yet they also hold great value for PR professionals throughout the ranks.

One essential lesson that can be derived from Susskind and Field’s case study approach gets to the heart of public relations practice:

  • Focus on mutual gains. In any adversarial relationship, PR people need to keep focusing on mutual benefits. This not only has been a consistent positioning in the changing definition of public relations, but it’s also a critical difference between public relations and lobbying–another area we’ve also written about recently—which tends to be motivated more by “winning” or at least making the other party lose.

Doing Business with People Prone to Lying

Similarly, Leslie John in the July-August 2016 issue of Harvard Business Review emphasizes practicing reciprocity in dealing with people in situations where they may be prone to lie. Not inconsequentially, we see this as potentially any situation where stakes on the outcome are high. While it’s not for us to say who may or may not be given to lying in any particular situation, it would be disingenuous to say that public relations people never encounter or may never have to deal with liars.

As something as an antidote to dealing with people who lie, John offers this advice:

Humans have a strong inclination to reciprocate disclosure: When someone shares information with us, our instinct is to match their transparency.” So, when reciprocity is practiced—when PR people share little-known facts to outsiders—it encourages the recipient to open up and make admissions to an equal degree.

Although John cautions that reciprocity works best when it is initiated, it must also be approached cautiously: Reciprocity should be based on “an issue of strategic importance,” John writes, but later goes on to say that “it should start small: Share a substantive but not critical piece of information. Only if your counterpart reciprocates should you continue the tit for tat.” In other words, what’s disclosed should not be damaging, but it should have some value to the other side. When this is done, John says “it can foster trust and facilitate better outcomes through collaboration and joint problem solving.”

Many PR professionals accustomed to working with the media may recognize this strategy as a good basis for effective media relations. While this is not to suggest that journalists practice anything other than forthright questioning and truth-seeking motives, it is also true that journalists’ relations with PR pros can often be adversarial until both parties work hard to establish trust. Often, this mutual trust is created through a similar kind of quid pro quo.

Similar guidance offered by these publications and echoed in others, especially Beebe and Beebe, include the following:

If you have advice that’s worked in dealing with angry constituencies or with people who lie, let us know in a comment below. We’d like to learn from your experience.

Advertisements

When PR Pros Are Required to Register As Lobbyists: A Case Study

business interactions

From Ireland, here’s a case study that shows what happens when PR people aren’t vigilant against legislation that equates public relations activities with lobbying. In sum, PR pros register, others don’t.

Calls to ‘name and shame’ non-compliant lobbyists

PR industry believes legal and other professions have not reported lobbying activities

Legal firms engaged in lobbying activity are not thought to be complying with the legislation to the same extent as public relations professionals.

Organisations that do not comply with lobbying legislation introduced last September should be “named and shamed”, the Public Relations Institute of Ireland (PRII) has suggested. Read the full story from Irish Times here: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/calls-to-name-and-shame-non-compliant-lobbyists-1.2653590

Pitch Perfect: So are PR gifts considered ‘bribes?’

Gift GivingWe’re taking a brief hiatus to do some internal restructuring at PRDoctorChicago. But thank goodness, the world is full of meaningful content that can be shared from others through the Internet. To that end, here’s another timely re-post.

We’ve been writing about public relations versus lobbying and this post by Jill Downie for Al Arabiya English on “gifting” journalists comes as a natural extension of that post? Is giving freebies to journalists in return for coverage acceptable, prudent, ethical? If so, when? Under what conditions?

This post got our attention because it addresses one of the everyday dilemmas that PR pros deal with. It’s been our experience that common sense and common courtesy provide simple guidelines for some of the most basic of these issues. However, this post delves into the ethics of situations and practices that might not appear so clear. Hope you’ll read, enjoy and learn. Feel free to let us know below if you have questions.

One of the most debated subjects within the media industry is the grey area of gifting.    To read more, click link below.

Source: Pitch Perfect: So are PR gifts considered ‘bribes?’

Blurred Lines: When Marketing, PR, and Content Overlap

Worth repeating … we ran across this article a short time ago and thought it caught the essence of what it’s like for PR pros and marketers in this new world order of content development and social media. So we’re re-blogging it here to share ideas on how you can competitively maximize the potential of a truly integrated marketing effort. We’re sure you’ll enjoy reading, and perhaps learn some new ideas too! Be sure to let us know below.

Blurred Lines: When Marketing, PR, and Content Overlap

by Aly Saxe  |

March 17, 2016   |  4,165 views

From social selling to new opportunities with mobile advertising, every marketing organization now has a cornucopia of channels through which to work its magic.

Yet, different channels and opportunities demand different skills, and the effort needed to coordinate all the necessary components and team members is immense. It can be confusing at best, unproductive at worst.

Let’s take a simple example: an infographic.

You’ve compiled the information and applied beautiful design. Now what? You probably have 10 different channels to send it through. Should one person own every channel and strategy for promotion? I mean, it’s just a simple infographic, right?

The answer is “no,” and here’s why.

Read more: http://www.marketingprofs.com/articles/2016/29554/blurred-lines-when-marketing-pr-and-content-strategy-overlap#



 

bigstock-public-relations-concept-in-th-17050577

More noteworthy news: If you’re a regular, or even occasional reader of the PRDoctorChicago blog, you know that a subject near and dear to us is the difference between public relations and lobbying. We frequently write about and advocate for a better understanding of the differences between the two communications disciplines. To that end, we express kudos to major PR organizations and firms who stepped up in March to challenge the New York State Ethics Commission ruling equating public relations communications with lobbying. This is a significant step, and one that bears watching, as the industry moves forward to challenge the efforts of those outside of PR to define what the industry is. In case you missed, simply click this link for an overview of event.

It’s Public Relations, Not Lobbying!

Despite arguments to the contrary, New York State’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics has ruled to expand the definition of lobbying to include PR professionals–a prospect we called chilling, and now actually alarming.

To help make our case against this ruling, we call forth this missive from the nation’s “community organizer in chief.”

“To my mind, there’s a difference between a corporate lobby whose clout is based on money alone, and a group of like-minded individuals–whether they be textile workers, gun aficionados, veterans or family farmers–coming together to promote their interests; between those who use their economic power to magnify their political influence far beyond what their numbers might justify and those who are simply seeking to pool their votes to sway their representatives. The former subvert the very idea of democracy. The latter are its essence.”

-Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope

Barack Obama campaigning on street

Public Relations vs. Lobbying-Part II

business interactions

By far, one of our most popular posts was on the topic of Public Relations and Lobbying, published back in 2012. Since that time the post has been continuously circulating. With proposals potentially impacting public relations now being reviewed in the legislatures of several states, the circumstances call for a timely update.

The most well-known of those bills now being considered is in New York, which follows the pattern of similarly controversial proposals in Massachusetts and Los Angeles. These bills range from proposals requiring public relations professionals to register as lobbyists to those that would restrict lobbying efforts by nonprofits. As we said before, such proposals would seem to us to have a chilling effect on the public relations profession, but to also raise the alarming spectre of infringements on free speech and social justice.

The blurring line between public relations and numerous other disciplines, including lobbying, calls for PR people to be alert and vigilant on understanding the differences between these professions.

As we said in our previous posts, citizens have a long history of organizing and petitioning our government for redress and for actions on behalf of the common good. We liken such grassroots movements to the Federalist Papers, which helped establish the basis of governing in our democratic society. And yes, while we are aware and watchful of many disguised special interests who have, and continue to hijack or simulate grassroots movements to achieve self-serving ends—a disingenuous practice known as astroturfing—we, nonetheless, think the right of citizens to organize and to use legitimate public relations practice to raise awareness and advance their causes is a protected right. Such is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It is the tenets of the profession—not occasional overlapping methods—that we believe favorably distinguishes public relations from similar activities and pursuits.

Public relations

does not seek

negative

outcomes.

In more than 30 years of public relations practice, our mantra has always been: Public relations does not seek negative outcomes. In other words, PR doesn’t seek to tear down something else; we use it to constructively demonstrate the positive attributes or reasonings behind our cause—in other words, building something up: an idea, a cause, a product, a service, a solution, etc. And we do so with persuasion as our principal tool. It’s the honest value, true belief in and understanding of the benefits of our client’s position that fuels our work.

So, despite a popular belief, especially during this political season, that “going negative” in method, outreach or advertising works, we firmly believe that going negative in outcome, approach, message, methodology, etc., will never achieve big-picture goals and the objectives needed to anchor public relations. On those rare occasions when we make comparisons, the differentiations are based on real differences, and not on the cynical notion of winning by making the other side lose.

Is It Public Relations Or Lobbying?

The subject of lobbying vs. public relations and other “communications” activities has come into focus recently, in increasingly important ways. We first noticed this in mid-March with a curious report that GolinHarris—one of the major PR firms—was shutting down its lobbying practice (who knew this PR giant did lobbying?) Then, in several later tweets during March, we followed the ugly lobbying scandal roiling through the United Kingdom’s national government—which has brought numerous investigations, blistering allegations and even threats of government regulation upon the Commonwealth’s PR industry.  And in just the past weeks, reports have surfaced of a Massachusetts bill being drafted that would include public relations practitioners and communications specialists under the definition of “lobbyists.” All of these reports, for us, had a chilling effect.

Why? Because in them public relations is being closely tied to lobbying; and while there may be some parallels in communications objectives, they are distinctly different in terms of standards and modus operandi. Additionally, we think the majority of communications professionals make a clear distinction between public relations and lobbying—even in cases where they may engage in both activities. (A curious mix, in our view, which is bound to result in confusion and blowback, at some level.)

Public Relations is not Lobbying

 It concerns us greatly to see public relations ostensibly recast as lobbying. In public relations, the stock and trade of the business is communicating in a way that generates goodwill and mutual benefit, based upon the merits of a given position or viewpoint. Lobbying, in our view, goes beyond the merits and persuasiveness of the arguments alone; lobbying typically introduces a system of “spoils,” or “rewards” for desired outcomes—often in the form of monetary contributions, gifts, favors, perks, etc., that have some material value or net material gain for the recipient.

For a combined 30 years, both inside and outside of government, we have practiced traditional public relations and what we call “communications advocacy.” In that, we engage in systematic communications to advance a cause or purpose, all the while endorsing the ethical and “good conscience” standards incumbent in a profession whose sheer existence is based on trust. We use every persuasive communication device at our disposal: facts, inferences, emotional storytelling, skilled argumentation, compelling presentation, and, in some cases, negotiation to make our case. In our minds, these are the bare-bones elements of communications. When “spoils” are introduced to the framework of engagement and debate, it becomes something other than public relations. For many, it becomes “lobbying,” and that, in the minds of many people, is an unwelcome, if not unsavory association.

So, in our minds, we’re pretty clear, public relations is not lobbying, and we should guard against any effort to link the two as one in the public’s mind. As we stated in one of our tweets, citizens in a democracy have a constitutional right and a long history of petitioning their government on issues of public policy and public trust. (Think the Federalist Papers) To do so isn’t lobbying, necessarily, but it is public relations. It becomes lobbying when the focus of the debate centers on self-gain, and not mutual interest.

What Makes A Good PR Person?

As we discussed in our last blog, the world is abuzz regarding the practice of public relations. Since we last posted, PRSA has established its new definition of PR, and a raucous debate on standards of practice, lobbying, etc., has sprung forth in the UK– which could have implications industry wide.  Consequently PRSA officials felt the need to weigh in on the UK debate.  All of this self-examination, redefinition, and realignment of standards and practices, caused us to ponder the question: what makes a good PR person? You would probably get a different answer from every person to whom this question is posed, but for us, a few   common characteristics stand out. Here’s our take on what are the compelling characteristics of a good PR person:

  • Inquisitive, thinks expansively. Has a global and universal view of the world at the same time. Practically speaking, this means you’re a person open to ideas—whether ancient or new, within your realm of experience or beyond, and across  the usual boundaries of age, race, culture, geography or language. We like to say about PR practice:  You never know where your next good idea will come from. True enough, we are surprised each day about how much of our past experience—the things we’ve done, read, seen or been involved with, are somehow surprisingly relevant to the projects we’re working on now. It’s absolutely uncanny, and the good PR person never underestimates the value of his or her accumulated life experience to the job at hand.
  • A good writer. We think a good PR person is, by definition, a good writer; someone who writes well and is on their way to becoming an excellent writer. By this, we don’t simply mean grammar and execution: what we mean most profoundly is that they understand “the voice” of the subject they’re writing about. They understand perceptions, feelings, and nuances related to the subject in a way that’s otherwise hard to explain. A good PR person is a good writer, on the lifelong journey of becoming an ever better writer.
  • Honors the profession. A good PR person is self-regulating: He or she accepts that the profession, similar to journalism, is built around a bond of openness, mutuality and trust with the audience(s). They refuse to corrupt the process of communication. They accept the inherent responsibility of speaking truth to power, and vice versa.

A fundamental principle of practice at our firm is that [responsible] “PR does not seek negative outcomes.” We’re not about trying to tear something down; we’re about raising something up—creating room for an alternative voice.

So, these are some of our thoughts on what makes a good PR person (not exhaustive). We’d like to hear yours …Chime in.

By the way, as we tweeted about earlier, here’s the latest ad from Google (the coffee stains are ours!), presumably to offset concerns about privacy of information. Clever, but are they “winning”? You tell us.

Starbucks, Pushing the Bounds of CSR: Is That a Good Thing?

We knew when we first read about it, that we’d write a post about it. Howard Schultz and Starbucks had done it again—proven to be an agenda-setter on public engagement and corporate social responsibility (CSR). No, we’re not talking about the #RaceTogether initiative—but we’re including our thoughts on that in this post too! The impetus really began with Starbucks’s salute to military veterans in its For Love of Country recognition.Starbucks
For Love of Country may not be as familiar as Race Together, but it predates and overlaps with the much ballyhooed #RaceTogether. For those who may have missed it, Starbucks joined forces with journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran to produce a book and related advertising and media push to herald not only the courageous service of military veterans, but to also raise some prickly social issues–namely, who fights our wars in America’s all-volunteer army (and who doesn’t), and how those who do are acknowledged for their service.  (Not nearly meaningfully and substantively enough by the rest of us.)

We were impressed that Schultz, as a corporate leader, not only stepped out front on this sensitive topic, but then went one step further—in the minds of many, one step too far—by prodding us to talk about the contentious issue of “race.”

Starbucks tweet

 

Whether you thought well or ill or the #RaceTogether effort, or even question a company raising pangs of consciousness about the social justice of an all-volunteer army, or any other societal woe, we think there’s a lot to be gained by companies taking leadership on social issues.

There’s a long history of companies doing well by doing good. You’ve read some of our posts on Henry Ford and a whole array of others before and since who’ve put their money and their mouths to lead or join important social and civic conversations. Indeed, it’s well established that a socially active or PR savvy CEO brings added value to a company and even an industry

As further affirmation, just look at what tech moguls were able to help accomplish when they found their collective voice against sex bias and discrimination in #Indiana.

So we think it’s a good thing that CEOs like Howard Schultz embark on campaigns that remind us that companies share  our social pains and that, even better, they have the means to affect changes that make things better for us all. We all know that companies often engage their collective voices behind closed doors to secretly lobby for things they believe represent their corporate interests. We think it’s time more CEOs join the public dialogue about the things more enduring and sustaining that impact us all. Wanna’ talk about #RaceTogether? We’re game. And while we’re at it, let’s talk about For Love of Country, too!
.


Follow prdoctorchicago on WordPress.com

prdoctorchicago

Follow me on Twitter