So What?

To me, it is one of the most in-your-face questions known to mankind. It represent a direct challenge to one's motives, integrity and logic. This two-word question represents confrontation at its most direct. So what? We make a decision. We take an action. We issue a statement. And the response of this question directly challenges us to defend whether what we did matters even a little bit to any one beyond ourselves? If we had done or said nothing, would it have made any difference? Is there a reason any one should care about our actions one way or the other? So what?, in essence, cuts to the core of our fundamental purpose.

 As communicators, our challenge is to put forth strategies that move opinion and/or actions in a particular direction. We want to enhance the reputation or image of a client. We want to shape public perception in a direction supporting that which we represent. Thus, by definition, strategies and tactics we put forth are supposed to be consequential. They are designed to make a difference or change the landscape. Yet if we implement a certain measure that does not attempt to speak to that end, even in a small way, then what we have done is waste of time, energy and resources. The question of so what? has exposed our actions as meaningless.

More and more in the world of communication professional practitioners are looked upon as agents of change. They are the ones brought in to make a difference.  They are the members of the team, as much as any one, looked to to make life better for others in a tangible way. Whether it is to increase visibility, bring in more donations, generate more members, raise the customer base or lift the profit margin, it is these results that fall under the scope of the pubic relations practitioner. Thus, their actions and decisions have much riding on them. This is why their answer to the question of so what? is and will continue to be highly significant.

Staged Events

Media events sometimes get a bum rap. Words such as "fake" or "contrived" are often tossed at them and sometimes, I should note, rightfully so. At the same time, it is a mistake to paint them so negatively with a broadbrush stroke. When done well, they do serve an important purpose in helping showcase a specific message or theme. Media or staged events bring attention to issues in a way that other strategies such as press releases, robo calls or postings on Facebook are not able to. What better way to illustrate this point than by selecting a couple of examples in the lives of ordinary folks.

A married couple is about to reach their 50th wedding anniversary. To celebrate this milestone their children organize an elaborate dinner at the couple's favorite restaurant. They invite special friends and family members to participate in the evening's celebration. Such a staged event is designed to honor the couple and highlight the high regard and love others feel for them. To call such an event "fake" would be a mistake. The child of a young couple is about to reach its first birthday. The parents invite family and friends to celebrate this milestone in their baby's life. Much like the anniversary celebration, this event is most definitely staged, yet no one can doubt the sincere feelings driving it. 

Be definition, these kind of activities are designed to generate attention. There is little, if anything, subtle about them. Yet beyond the glitz that  may accompany them, more often than not there is a serious purpose that underscores these media strategies. In a few weeks the 2013 Academy Awards program will be held. One would be hard-pressed to identify any single event dripping more with over-the-top glitz and glamour than that. Beneath the splash, however, is the core purpose of this annual event: to pay tribute to the motion picture industry, to honor the work of its members, and to encourage the rest of us to continue to support it. Such a media event is the best communication strategy for this ever-popular industry.

NRA Needs to Show More Heart

Currently much debate over gun violence, gun registation, the second amendment of the Constitution, and fire arms in-general is dominating the public airwaves. Not surprisingly, the National Rifle Association is one of the louder voices in this debate that has been triggered by the tragic and heart-breaking multiple killings at a number locations throughout the country, including an elementary school, shopping malls, a movie theater, a military base, college campuses and public gatherings. With thousands and and thousands of members and close ties to the firearm industry, it makes sense the NRA is front and center in the debate over what steps, if any, the country should take to address the mindless slayings caused by deranged individuals.

As the debate revolves around the murder and maiming of innocent men and women, including children, it is highly-charged and emotional.  Though not a member of the NRA, I can appreciate the organization's dilemma: they feel a need to defend the second amendment and a person's right to own a firearm without restriction, yet are doing so in a climate of outrage and distress over what seems ever-increasing acts of violence. People are dieing and the overall citizenry is understandably upset and wants the country's leaders to do something - anything - about it. From a public relations perspective, this scenario places the NRA at a crossroad.

For the NRA, the challenge is how best to put forth its argument. Presently, it is falling short because it is not being sensitive or sympatheitc enough to the legitimate outrage being expressed by gun owers and non-gun owners alike over the recent gut-wrenching violence. In short, the NRA, in the form of its top leaders and leading proponents, is coming across as not caring and insensitive to the pain and anguish so many are feeling. Consequently, people are becoming as turned-off to the NRA as they are to the violence itself. The NRA and its leaders need to show more of their heart and less of their heads if they want to generate wider spread support for their position.

Public Relations and Democracy

In many ways, when it comes to us, the bottom line question is what kind of contribution, if any, do we make to society. Big or small, is it something positive that betters the lot of our fellow men and women? The same, I believe, holds true for any organization. In keeping with this, recently I came across an article on public relations by Patrick Coffee that was written in October, 2012, in PR Newser. Titled "Does the Growth of PR 'Threaten Democracy?', the author raises the possibility that the growing field of pubic relations with its thousands of practitioners is eroding the ability of journalists to report the news objectively.

Coffee observes that more and more of the messages and/or information being communicated to the general public is "sponsored" by some one or some thing rather than being simply reported. An analogy to this might be the relationship between lobbyists and elected officials. As lobbyists far outnumber those elected to office, many have expressed concern that it is those lobbyists who are dictating the content of legislation and the actions of those men and women who supposedly are in office to serve the public and advance democracy. My concern is this question raised by Coffee might very well have an element of truth in it.

There is no doubt public relations practitioners spend much of their time trying to sway reporters to cover specific stories and then report them in particular ways that flatter their clients. The fact there are so many of these paid communicators (the Public Relatons Society of America alone boats over 20,000 members) leaves the print and electronic reporters, many of whom are operating under tight budgets, limited resources shrinking news holes to fill, with a very heavy challenge of not bending to this heavy pressure coming from PR types. Generally-speaking, the press seems to be fighting an uphill battle. So, what is to be done? Those same public relations professionals can help by ensuring everything they share with the press and the public is accurate. The truth is powerful enough to help maintain the viability of a society no matter what might be pulling against it.

Communicating to Power

The stakeholders of any organization or entity potentially wields power. Potentially they are persons with much influence. Those who administer or run the organizations often turn to the stakeholders for advice, guidance and approval. It is not uncommon for the executive to even defer to the stakeholder when their perspectives clash. Stakeholders often hold sway over the matter of the executive's tenure, including his or her salary, length of service and employment. Execuive are even often beholden to stakeholders. Consequently, the stakeholder is a person generally treated with regard, respect and deference.

Given the reality of the kind of power a stakeholder can and often does hold, then, it makes the role of the organization's chief communication officer all the more vital. Stakeholders may be highly influential, but they are not all-wise or all-knowing. As is the case with anyone in a position of power, they, too, need to hear hard truths and be given facts that are not shaped or altered in any way. This is something the top communicator can and should do. It falls under the umbrella of "truth of power." In this case, however, one might call it "communicating to power." Granted, doing this may not always be easy, but if the communicator is to be true to him or herself, to their organization and even to the stakeholder, then this is what they must be prepared to do.

What can make this a particular challenge is if the communicator does not have direct access to the stakeholders. This is not uncommon. Thus, to carry out the vital function of communicating properly to those key individuals, the communicator can and should work through other top leaders within the organiation, including the chief executive. Give them the straight facts to pass along. Even include recommendations if it is appropriate. This kind of straight forward action can help earn the communicator direct access to the stakeholders. Once that is done, then the organization and all that lead it are moving toward the ultimate goal of being open, transparent, and meeting their responsibilities in the name of the greater good.

Be Mindful of Stakeholders

Stakeholders are a tricky lot.  They do not necessarily serve as part of an organization's customer base; nor are they part of the demographic that entities go after when they advertise, recruit or try to promote their initiatives or programs. Yet heaven help those same organizatrions if they make even close to a significant move without being sensitive to the perspectives or reactions of the stakeholders. This public, though often small in number, carries much weight and influence over the organization, and more directly, the men and women who run them. This, then, is a practical reason why any public relations practitioner needs to factor stakeholders into all promotional effort they undertake.

Who exactly are these stakeholders any way? The quick answer is they are individuals that have a vested interest in the well being of an organization or entity. An example is found at any institution of higher learning. All colleges and universities have some kind of governming body such as a board of visitors or trustess or, in some cases, both. These bodies are comprised of individuals that care about the welfare of their institution and, as a result, lend their expertise to helping oversee its budget, hire and fire its president, and give direct input into all major administrative decisions.  They are either appointed or, in some cases, elected to these positions. But do any of them actually take classes at the instittion, teach or work at them? Generally not.

Obviously, however, the stakeholders, collectively and individually, must not be ignored. They must be kept in the loop as well as any of the organization's other publics.  One challenge is found is determining specific strategies to do this. As they are a unique lot, whatever tactics the public relations worker devises must be unique to the stakeholders. Further, the strategies should be formulated with direct input and involvement from the organization's top administrators, including the president or chief executive officer. To ignore staekholders is to travel down a foolish path, one that could create.a gap between those who run the organization and those who care about it. For the well being of all involved, this should never happen.





  

The Art of Communication

In one of his state papers to King George III of England, revoluntary Thomas Jefferson wrote, "....the whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail....." With a slight alteration, this statement, written nearly 240 years ago, speaks to the core of communication. Specifically, it is art of communication that consists in the art of being honest. Putting aside all the fancy graphics, colorful language, bright lights or gripping backdrops that often accompany acts of communication these days, is what one is saying the truth?

Much of what drives communication these days is an attempt to persuade. Professional communicators strive to motivate consumers to buy a particular product, support a cause or candidate or adopt a certain belief. Often their efforts are slick and efficient and in many cases successful. This, of course, makes the clients of the communicators very happy as it helps them make money, gain greater visibility and/or attain higheer levels of power. There is nothing wrong with any of these things. Who among any of us does not wish for any or all of them at some points in our lives? But those stations are only meaningful if they are attained with truthful effort.  

Professional communicators are individuials, too. At the end of each day, they go home to families and friends who view them as proponents of virtue. These family members and friends trust this professional who happens to communicate for a living is a person who does so in ways that are upfront, honest and without deception. If they are wrong, then the communicator is betraying the art of communication. Further, they are betraying those who hold them in high regard. Communcation's essence rides on the shoulders of the professional as this person is its most visible soldier. Ideally, this should not be viewed as a burden but rather as a privilege,