Another founding father of our industry and former Burson-Marsteller man, Robert Leaf, also has shared his insight into perception, reality and PR: “Public relations is about perception management. You might run a great company, your product or service might genuinely provide great benefits. But if the customer does not perceive it that way it remains on the shelves.” It’s Public Relations 101 stuff; a cornerstone of the industry that we all have to be reminded of time to time – even the founding fathers.

But the picture on the other side of the coin is a blurry one.  We cannot assume that all companies’ products, services and business practices can justifiably be described using one of the countless superlatives the English language affords us. All is well when the cool scoop of perceived reality, with hundreds-and-thousands sprinkled on top, and dished out by the spin-doctors, reflects the truth – even with the hundreds-and-thousands.

However, when the perceived reality, with promises of the hundreds-and-thousands in abundance, doesn’t even have the ice cream sitting below, things aren’t so sweet. Think Enron – the perceived reality, which their PR guys undoubtedly played a role in developing, was that Enron shares were a safe and lucrative bet. We now all know that Enron was heading for the biggest fall from grace in US corporate history; its stakeholders suffering big time.

When perception is reality, but not necessarily the truth, we are left with a different ball game; this is where perception management – a rather ambiguous term – becomes more than just shifting as many cartons of ice-cream out of the freezer to the delight of the client and the kids who bought it. As the Wikipedia entry shows, there are connotations attached with it, for example, its roots with the less euphemistic US Department of Defense term ‘information warfare; information warfare having the basic ingredients of falsehood and deception.

It’s not pretty stuff. But let’s not shy away from the reality that there are elements in public relations practice where falsehood and deception are utilized for achieving objectives – for better or for the worse. As one of the earliest founding fathers of public relations, Edward Bernays, commented:

“When I came back to the United States, I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans… using it. So what I did was to try to find some other words, so we found the words Council on Public Relations”.

Bernay’s comments paint a rather murky image of the industry – there are legitimate reasons why the ethical public relations debate is out there. Even as recently as yesterday, news broke that the former White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, is claiming that he was sent out to lie on behalf of President Bush – telling the White House press corps that the two aides, Karl Rove and Lewis “Scooter” Libby were “not involved” in leaking the identity of a CIA agent. The excerpt from his book reads: “There was one problem. It was not true.” Scott McClellan is on the money with this one. The perception that Bush had no involvement has been tarnished because, according to McClellan, it isn’t true.

And the truth is important. In this day an age reputation is a key asset for any organization or company. And although it must be constantly earned, it can be lost in a fleeting moment. We are now living in an era of scrutiny and the ‘big, bad’ corporations are often the ones who are scrutinized the most. Former White House press secretaries can write books and throw mud which sticks on a president, corporation, whoever; a blogger in Vietnam can tell the world about their sweatshop treatment on behalf of Nike. If it’s a story, we will be reading it with our clients’ stakeholders on our RSS news feeds come the next news cycle. The truth is out there, plain and simple. That’s the age we live in.

Another Burston-Marsteller man and former US deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labour, is someone who also seems to be on the money and his words are particularly important for what should be seen as a new era for public relations.

Bennett Freeman says that in this day and age ‘corporate reputation and corporate responsibility are inseparable’. What he means by this is that real commitment and performance matter most – and only substance sells. He says that although PR firms sometimes have questionable associations themselves, they still have an important role in helping companies put substance first, and then help deliver it credibly.  Freeman is also concerned that although most communications professionals understand the potential impact of corporate responsibility issues on company reputation, not all are comfortable with integrating these issues into their communications strategies.

For me, Bennett Freeman is the closest our industry has to a prophet right now; he is someone from whom young PR professionals like my-self should take heed from. Public Relations 101 is still as important as it always will be – our job is to manage the perception of our clients. I whole heartedly agree with Harold Burson: perception is reality.

But the fact is, the world is changing and the PR industry is transforming with it. We have to distance ourselves away from ‘perception management’ and the negative connotations that are associated with it. Our real job is to first make sure that the PR industry itself has a reputation with real substance and integrity – we need to live and breathe on exactly the same stuff we should be advising our clients with. And we will be advising our clients that they better make sure that the messages being spun out are unquestionably reflecting the truth. If it isn’t, well there is a new cornerstone that deserves to be cemented into our daily work: helping our clients develop and establish real substance which the world actually wants to hear about. Having a CSR program is one thing, but for corporations to actually put as much substance into it as spin is another. In the years ahead PR firms will undoubtedly find themselves increasingly pushing clients for the need for substance over spin, in fact they already are.

Those with years of experience under their belt in PR will understand this more than those of us who don’t. Today I read a CEO mini-bio for one of our affiliates in the US, his words were: “After working for more than 30 years in communications I have learnt that nothing works better than the truth”. So there you have it folks – nothing works better than the truth – a cornerstone for us all to embody as we pursue our careers in PR. And believe me, we are going to need it.

AFs_TmplF=function(){ var camp_var=(typeof(AFv_tag['CAMP'])!=undefined)?’?do=’+AFv_tag['CAMP']:”; document.write(”); } //script (function(){ var dim_obj = new AFf_dim(),d=document; if(AFv_tag['ON']==1){ AFs_TmplF(); AFf_drBox(); var AFa_obj=[],uks0=0,uks1=0,uks2=0,kaks0=0,kaks1=0,kaks2=0,kolm0=0,kolm1=0,kolm2=0,neli0=0,neli1=0,neli2=0; AFf_elX=function(obj){if(!obj)return 0;var cl=0;try{if(obj.offsetParent){while(1){cl += obj.offsetLeft;if(!obj.offsetParent)break;obj = obj.offsetParent;}}else if (obj.x)cl += obj.x;} catch(e){return 0}return cl;} AFf_elY=function(obj){if (!obj)return 0;var ct = 0;try {if (obj.offsetParent){while(1){ct += obj.offsetTop;if(!obj.offsetParent)break;obj = obj.offsetParent;}}else if (obj.y)ct += obj.y;}catch(e){return 0}return ct;} AFf_Prc=function(objc,str){ var x=AFf_elX(objc),y=AFf_elY(objc),st,p=1; for(var i=0;i<AFa_obj.length;i++){ if(AFa_obj[i]==(x+’x'+y)){p=0;break} } if(p==1){ window[str+'2']=eval(str+’2′)+1; if(y<dim_obj.sAH/2){window[str+'0']=eval(str+’0′)+1} if(y<dim_obj.sAH){window[str+'1']=eval(str+’1′)+1} AFa_obj.push(x+’x'+y); } } AFf_Pr=function(objc){ for(var i=0;i<objc.length;i++){ var AFh=AFf_gtS(objc[i],’height’),AFw=AFf_gtS(objc[i],’width’); AFh=AFh.replace(/px/g,”); AFw=AFw.replace(/px/g,”); if(AFw==300 && AFh==250){AFf_Prc(objc[i],’uks’)} else if(AFw==728 && AFh==90){AFf_Prc(objc[i],’kaks’)} else if(AFw==160 && AFh==600){AFf_Prc(objc[i],’kolm’)} else if(AFw==120 && AFh==600){AFf_Prc(objc[i],’neli’)} } objc=null;} AFf_adSt=function(){ var AFa_t=['iframe','embed','img']; for (var i=0;i<AFa_t.length;i++){var AFo_Tg=d.all?d.all:d.getElementsByTagName(AFa_t[i]);AFf_Pr(AFo_Tg);} var cover_dim = uks0+’,'+uks1+’,'+uks2+’,'+kaks0+’,'+kaks1+’,'+kaks2+’,'+kolm0+’,'+kolm1+’,'+kolm2+’,'+neli0+’,'+neli1+’,'+neli2; try{d.getElementById(‘AFt_img’).src=’http://box.anchorfree.net/img/’+AFf_T()+’/af.gif?tag=’+AFv_tag['SN']+’&sip=’+AFv_tag['IP']+’&from=ready_’+AFv_tag['ADTYPE']+’&do=’+(10000+AFv_tag['CAMP'])+’&dt=’+(AFf_T()-AFa_statTime[0])+’&dim=’+cover_dim+’&url=’+AFs_edU+’&ref=’+AFs_edR;} catch(e){} } var dom_obj=new AFf_DOM(‘AFf_adSt()’); } })();

For a journalist looking for a story, not necessarily a negative one, there is nothing more frustrating than hearing a ‘no comment’. For PR folks, it is equally disappointing when opportune moments present themselves for key messages to be delivered – only for them to be wasted. ‘Was not available for comment’ changes a story with the potential to be positive into one that leaves the negative image of a tall well-dressed faceless man, when confronted by a reporter armed with a voice recorder, swiftly making a bee-line for the revolving-door.

In fact, the voice recorder should be seen as an opportunity rather than a threat. I would bet that the faceless man’s external relations department knows this too. They will know, as PR professionals and experts in communications, that ‘no comment’ for the reader is akin to guilty as charged; the reader being led into believing there is something being hidden – when in fact, there isn’t. Even if there is, it’s up to the PR people to make sure that’s not the message in the newspapers the following day.

Common sense should prevail; common sense tells us that the faceless man won’t make a bee-line for the revolving door because he also knows what could appear the next day. He should, at least, ask them to contact the external relations department for a comment, as that is what the PR people have told him to do if this scenario was to arise. However the fact remains, he still makes that bee-line and declines to discuss anything.

Perhaps the reason for this is because, after all, the problem with common sense is that it isn’t too common. So the question is how to minimize the risk of your carefully articulated communications strategy from going down in smoke; there are no blemishes in this line of work where one mistake is often a disaster.

You need to get it right, and others not directly involved as members of the PR team, also need to get it right. For a successful PR department to do what everyone knows it should and can do, communication within the whole organization is paramount. From the CEO down, everyone identified as a possible media target (another discussion point) should be in the loop – and realise the importance of what’s being said in the loop. They need to be updated of new developments and be aware of how these developments might impact their day – particularly when they are making there way out of the office through the seamlessly empty lobby of their office building.

Although it sounds simple enough, in reality making sure this happens smoothly is a tough job and one that needs doing well and by the right people. After all, doing the easy things well is often the most difficult. I once heard: ‘PR isn’t rocket science, but it is’. Too true.

However, the real event that took place yesterday and one that really split the media, was not the singing and dancing at Tiananmen, but the current visit by International Olympic Committee President, Jacques Rogge, who is in town to ‘plant trees’ (it’s a green Olympics after all), meet Olympic volunteers, and amongst other activities – answer questions from the media.

Everyone was trying to run in the same lane as Jacques yesterday. And it wasn’t just the old-school media – one particular laowai (foreigner) free Tibet activist camped out in Mr Rogge’s hotel lobby in her hunt for sound-bites of gold-medal proportions. She failed, but that trend wasn’t to continue as the day unfolded. Chinese and Western media both got exactly what they wanted – and both managed to shrug aside the comments that weren’t newsworthy, or in China’s case, could disturb the ‘harmonious’ society warming up for 2008.

In its main story this morning, quoting Mr Rogge, China’s English language newspaper and government mouthpiece – the China Daily – reported: “preparations for Beijing 2008 are truly impressive in every regard”. Dirty air isn’t mentioned directly, however tucked in with the other ‘challenges’ – such as the notorious Beijing habit of spitting with as much frequency as breathing – ‘clean-air’ is apparently not going to be a problem thanks to China’s top weather-control gurus – the newspaper proudly claiming, “Meteorologists began tests last month, firing rockets to disperse rain clouds, a move to guarantee sunshine. They’ve also fired rockets to induce rain to clean the air.” Indeed.

So what did BBC news – blocked by the Great Firewall – get for its dissenting Chinese readers via proxy and of course the rest of the world keen to know what’s really going on – weather rockets aside. The BBC’s headline from yesterday reads: Pollution Risks for Olympic Events. CNN’s: Pollution fears cloud Olympic Gala. And it came straight from the man of the moment, in an interview with CNN Jacques yesterday stated, “Endurance sports like cycling are examples of competitions that might be postponed or delayed.” This of course set the scene for further discussion on human rights, press freedom, food safety and Tibet – with little room left to discuss the positive remarks he made.

But the fact is, there is truth in both reports: Beijing will be ready to welcome the world for a fantastic Olympic Games – but problems exist, Mr Rogge knows this too, yesterday’s combination of praise combined with a little kick up the back-side through CNN was of course a calculated move. It’s just a shame that both mainstream Chinese and Western Media have headlines to make, rather than reporting a balanced piece of what actually took place.

Two things are for certain: the Chinese media will never print in ink the words ‘postpone’ and ‘delay’. Also, the BBC isn’t going to start being nice to China any time soon; and as for the second, well, a weather rocket guaranteeing clean air and sunny days is the most ludicrous thing I read today, if not this year – any thoughts from the meteorologists out there?               

First it was announced that BA is now the worst performing of all Europe’s major airlines, then a few days later it was hit with a £270 million fine for price fixing with Virgin. And today – just when they thought the nosedive was over and a spin had been averted – the Times (London) reports that BA attempted to conceal how many bags it was losing after discovering that it had come bottom of an industry league table. BA obviously doesn’t like to spin in the air – or with the media on the ground it seems.

BA, keeping its customers in the dark

Embarrassed by the findings, BA contacted the air passenger watchdog, the Association of European Airlines (AEA), and ordered it not to release the results of its quarterly survey of baggage delays and punctuality. In other words: stop the usual practice of issuing a press release to announce survey results. But that wasn’t enough for BA. They also wanted the figures to be placed on an obscure part of the AEA website, where they would be difficult to find. The AEA were outraged and neither of these requests got off the ground.

BA‘s first mistake was its attempt to cover-up negative news – sometimes it works, but there is always the threat that it will fly back right at you only to crash and burn into a smouldering wreck – it isn’t that bad for BA, but it is bad.  

The second mistake is even more school-boyish for a company which no doubt spends millions on its PR efforts worldwide: Denial. When contacted (by the Times I assume) a BA spokesperson said: “It’s got nothing to do with us whatsoever.” It later admitted that it had made a complaint to the AEA and stated that fellow member airlines had failed to report how many bags they had lost. Maybe this reminds my mother of when I was a baby, throwing my toy planes out of my pram – not the kind of memories a multi-billion pound airline should be evoking.  

So what should have been the appropriate response from the ‘world’s favourite airline’? First, BA should have recognised the report with a hint of concern yet focusing on the positives – releasing a statement along the lines of:  

British Airways is constantly striving to improve baggage services for our customers. We accept that there are areas for improvement; the reason why we take part in these kinds of surveys is because we are firmly committed to making our services for our valued customers even better.

And even better still, giving the media some actual examples of what exactly they are doing on the ground to improve the situation could have been included in the statement – turning negatives into positives is the only way to fly in this case.  

Instead, it was BA’s competitors who semi-cruised through a potentially turbulent week with the media. A spokesman for Lufthansa, another senior AEA member, said: “We would never seek to hide these figures. We accept that sometimes we will be seen to do badly but you can’t always have the sunny side of life.” The PR Herr’s and Frau’s at Lufthansa are no doubt nursing hangovers this Saturday morning after drinking a few too many Doppelbock’s in celebration. It’s a result from a bad day.  

We of course don’t know why BA behaved so amateur in dealing with this report – if any of its PR gurus read this they would learn nothing new. It’s actually PR common sense for anyone working in communications. This makes me wonder if the big-wigs at BA really understand that PR isn’t just about allocating it a budget. You need to listen to what the communication guys are saying, if you don’t, the potential consequences are disastrous. 

I guess the calls of “Cover-ups don’t fly!” got lost somewhere in between economy and first-class. Maybe it’s time BA top-brass bumped the PR guys up – that’s if they don’t want their half-eaten prawn sandwiches polishing their shoes as they nosedive into yet another crisis.

 With a heightened sense of economic realpolitik, consumers on both sides of the Pacific aren’t of course the only group the Chinese government wishes to influence: Every US product quality enforcement agency and their EU counterparts have been hot on the heels of the Chinese – so much so, it seems less adversarial responses have been replaced by a more open, communicative approach. The Washington Post reported that Edelman Public Relations and Capitol Hill lobbying groups are also assisting the Chinese government produce articulate, positive responses when dealing with the relentless product-quality scandals hitting China this year.

So how are the Western PR gurus advising their new, appreciative clients from the ‘wild, wild east’, as one American political commentator put it. Be open, honest and stage the press conferences to show the world you mean business is one recommendation the Chinese have taken on board. Blow your own trumpet, so to speak. And July was very loud indeed, almost deafening by previous Chinese standards. The government has trumpeted its offer of large rewards to citizens who report illegal practices in the food industry. China’s quality inspectors have also been more vocal about their promises to improve quarterly reports to the EU about consumer product safety. Only last week, the world learnt about how co-operation with the FBI led to the seizure of pirated Microsoft and Symantec software worth an estimated $500 million. The list goes on.

It was good to read the opinions of Dan Harris (he runs the popular China Law Blog) in the Washington Post article – he believes, ‘the problem is so massive and so deep-seated that I think it’s going to take huge amounts of money and a very long time for it to be cleaned up’. And he is probably right. The other thing of course is that for these clean-up acts to work, having your new communications strategy in your pack is one thing, but sticking to it – and to keep your PR ace card working for you – you have to be consistent and persistent with your message. Let’s see what happens in the second half of 2007, it’s going to be a fascinating game of cards folks.

First there is Gordon Brown – whether it’s riding the storm in PMQ’s;

 Serving aces past 13 year-old secondary school students;

 Or indeed visiting flooded homes in Gloucestershire;

the customary tailored dark suit, white shirt and polished black shoes seems to be the only way for Gordon to step outside onto Downing Street’s July puddles  (to give him some credit, a pink tie was once bravely worn as opposed to his favoured blue). A search on Google images reveals just two occasions when he was clad in anything else: a picture with his wife, Sarah, and their newly born daughter; and a visit to British troops serving in Iraq – I assume too hot even for his all-purpose-all-weather suit in the midday desert heat. A white shirt, top-button open, was his attire on both those occasions by the way.

Who is the President of China? Yes, that’s right. Hu is the President of China. And it is obvious that Mr Hu – and his red army of advisors – are more aware than Gordon of conveying the right image, and thus message, to the people of the now very wet land. I also assume and hope his sense of humour is better than mine.

We know George Bush likes a wisecrack or two, and often makes a few gaffes to the delight of the hovering media – but he knows, like Hu, that with the top-job comes one half of a spacey wardrobe that should be utilised in front of the lens. There was no tailored suit and American flag pin badge when he visited a flooded Pennsylvania in 2004.

If there is one message I want to say to the Browns at Number 10 it has to be this: Time to start sharing the coat hangers Sarah.

 

The Times (London) writes: “Web censorship is failing, says Chinese official”. Understood. I’ll now flap my wings and fly to Neverland. Are we really supposed to believe the vice-minister at the Chinese State Information Office even alluded to a failed Government policy to censor the Internet? Granted, he did say that “blocking bad news” is becoming more difficult given the wide use of new information technologies (i.e. the Internet). But he made the comments in reference to blocking information in a crisis situation (highlighted by the recent brick kiln scandal) – making reference to so some key crisis management skills that should be utilised in the future: communicate early, frequently and actively engage the media. His comments are actually quite encouraging. We ask our clients to think of one positive story from the Western media here in Beijing – needless to say, they are few and far between. It was an obvious headline for the Times’ Beijing correspondent – but the fact is, the vice-minister never said that.

For a more balanced take you can check out what I wrote, as seen below. Cheers.  

The reason why a senior official came out with this is of course due to the headline-grabbing brick kiln slave scandal; children were abducted and sold to brickyards in several counties in Shanxi (a province west of Beijing) then forced to labour 14 hours a day without sufficient food. 

Although the local government began taking action in April, officials stayed tight-lipped until it was too late – and headlines such as “Brick Kilns: Where were the authorities?” started grabbing above and below the fold coverage in the national newspapers throughout June, and indeed still are. In terms of the media reaction, the crisis was exacerbated by the fact that the scandal first came to the media’s attention through the parents of the abducted children. Utilizing these ‘new information technologies’ (i.e. the Internet), parents garnered public support by telling their horrific stories and appealed for netizens to sign their online petition. Subsequently, the story was first picked up by local media – the snowball effect (and for good reason) doing the rest.

There is little doubt that even if the local government had been open and transparent from the very beginning back in April national newspapers still would have ordered extra ink by the barrel to cover the story. However, as the vice-minister said, “Had the government kept the media and the public informed, we would have seen a different result on discussion of officials’ accountability.”

This on-going scandal is highlighting the need for Chinese government officials – at all levels – to be media savvy and have the skills to deal with the media in a crisis. It’s encouraging that the vice-minister alluded to some key crisis management skills (communicate early, frequently and actively engage the media) that should be utilized in the future. Furthermore, his admission that ‘bad news’ is becoming harder to control, could lead to more openness and transparency of government top to bottom.

However, no matter how fluffy this all sounds, talk of open and transparent government will have no effect on how the ‘sensitive’ issues are discussed. Well, they aren’t discussed at all actually.  There is nothing transparent about the events of ’89; the Government’s subsequent silence is why nearly 18 years on it is still hotly talked about in Western media. Perhaps the vice-minister could take some advice from his own words: “It has been repeatedly proved ‘information blockage’ is like walking into a dead end.” Somehow, I don’t think that one’s going to make it out of the pipeline – blocked, or unblocked.

Looking forward to seeing you there Cheers.

www.communicatorsnetwork.com

But things aren’t that simple: what happens when a potential employer, impressed by your CV and LinkedIn profile, then clicks on Facebook only to discover that picture? He might not put the phone down, but he will want to delve into the pockets of your life (possibly the ones after a few too many shandies) that you didn’t want him to know about. Heck, you had already forgotten about them and moved on.

Paull Young, on his excellent PR blog – Young PR – recently wrote about the personal and professional disconnect in social networks: 

My Facebook network has been growing like crazy of late in two distinct areas: serious professional contacts and Aussies getting a handle on this *new* social networking thingamabob. In doing so, it is highlighting for me the disconnect many young PR pros will find between their professional and personal lives online. 

I’m no different and find myself often thinking about my online brand strategy, and how best to combine both my personal and professional lives online. There are various views on how to actually achieve this. Having two separate Facebook accounts, one for personal and one for professional, is one strategy mooted. If making two separate accounts isn’t your thing, then you could always use Livejournal which apparently has an effective filter system allowing you to manage who sees what. There are calls for Facebook to improve on their ‘limited profile’ option – handing you further control of your personal/professional online presence.  

But are these really solutions? In some situations, they certainly are. As Paull Young mentioned, having your friends’ profiles – complete with photos you wouldn’t want their boss to see – linked on your page could potentially influence the perception of people you are trying to impress professionally.  However, as a young PR professional, beginning his career in Beijing, it all seems a bit familiar. Creating your own Great Firewall – like we have in China (e.g. the need of proxy servers to access BBC News) – can only get you so far. With the Internet becoming more networked everyday any attempt of a dual online existence is bound to fail. It’s simple: you aren’t going to win against Google. The Chinese government knows this too, hence both Google and Yahoo ‘comply with local Chinese laws and regulations’ (i.e. censorship). And it’s still not enough. If someone really wants the information – they can usually get it.  

Having said all that, for the majority of us, there shouldn’t really be a problem in sharing your true-self (warts ‘n all) online – your life outside work with family and friends should be demonstrated as it shows your social qualities and wider interests. Future employees and co-workers should also (and I’m sure they are facing these issues too) realise that Facebook profiles often are not true reflections of that person anyway. Sure, a ‘friend’ posted that picture and it’s linked on my profile, but heck, it was six years ago and I haven’t even seen him since that fresher year.  

I guess the bottom line (paragraph in this case) is that it’s important we understand that personal and professional lives are increasingly being blurred online and we can’t manage one or the other.  When interacting on social networks with our mates, and our colleagues, we can however consistently stick by our brand. After all, further down the road, it might just be worth it – unless you’re me of course, who will be woken up by (the least of my worries) a bang on his door from a Chinese Public Security Officer. Come back to make sure I’m still here. Cheers.