• The function responsible for shaping and managing the image of a company;
• The protector of a company’s reputation;
• The practice of managing the flow of information between an organization and its publics.
• The practice of creating favorable relationships between a company and its publics.
• The practice of putting a company in the best light.

Public relations is all of those things but I would frame it a little differently.  To  me, the best public relations  is simply this:  starting and nurturing ongoing conversations between an organization or company and the various stakeholders and audiences it needs to engage to thrive and grow.  Public relations helps an organization tell its story to the outside world; it also helps leadership and staff inside organizations understand how their work connects to the rest of the world.

PR in today’s porous, 24-7, always on world is not so much about control as it is about engagement.  It isn’t about sending out press releases, holding events, Twitter and Facebook posts or web site hits.   Those are some of the tools  in the public relations arsenal.  PR is about  give and take:  Sharing information, taking information in, listening, and helping people understand why what you do matters and why it should matter to them.

Those of us who practice this profession need to think less about “spinning,” a word I despise.   There is far to much of that these days.  The best PR is about telling the truth, always.

Each of these entities made some missteps that received intense media scrutiny.  The constant barrage of negative press has tarnished their reputations.  While some are on the road to recovery, it’s a hard road–and one of the most challenging strategic communications issues.  What should you do if you find yourselves in a media firestorm?

1) Assess the situation.  What has caused the fire?  Is this something that was caused by your actions or inaction?  Have you been the target of a smear campaign?   How is the discussion about you being framed?  What else is going on in your industry?  Is this an assault on your work or industry?  Or are you merely a vehicle to talk about a much larger issue? 

For example, suppose you are a nonprofit that provides food and clothing to homeless individuals.  Perhaps another large nonprofit in your area that provides similar services is found to have an employee that embezzled funds, the majority of which came from state and federal government sources.  The organization tries to cover up the mismanagement of funds, but the press gets wind of it and then writes a series of article about the corruption at this agency and how government funds were wasted. The target isn’t so much homelessness and the agencies that help combat it, but rather the use of taxpayer dollars.   If you don’t understand the frame, you can’t mount a counter attack effectively.

2) Hold up a mirror.  Is there any truth to the coverage?  If there is, you must address it and move on.  When people attempt to cover up something that they’ve done wrong, it only makes it worse.  Instead of just a story about malfeasance, stupidity or corruption, you’ve now adding lying to the mix.  One of the tenets of crisis communications is that if you have bad news get it out there and acknowledge it  That way you may have a one or two-day story rather than one that drags on for weeks because there is continued speculation of wrong doing.

3) Contact the reporter and try to arrange a meeting to share your perspectives on the issue.  When contacting the reporter, tell them you thought the coverage was unfair and why .  If there are mistakes, tell them what was incorrect.  Stick to the facts.  Also, remember that reporters don’t write the headlines, so cut them a break if that’s where the trouble was.  If there is a factual error, ask for a correction.

4) If you have tried to reach out to the reporter and get no response, or if he or she is resistant to talking with you, ask to speak to the reporter’s editor.  Be very clear and focused on what is inaccurate about the coverage.  Be sure you can articulate your side of the issue concisely.

5) Write a letter to the editor or a piece for your local op-ed page to present your side of the story.  Don’t make it an attack on the news outlet, the reporter, or the media in general; rather, share your perspectives and insights so that you are giving the reader a greater understanding of the issues.  There is no guarantee that the news group will run it, but even if they don’t, you can post it on your website and encourage others in your network to do the same.

6) Mobilize your networks of supporters.  Encourage your stakeholders to also write letters to the editors and to use social media to voice their concerns about the coverage.  You may want to develop a series of points to share with them so that they can craft their own responses.  Remember, however, that once these talking points leave your office, they can be sent anywhere—to the reporter, to your detractors, etc.  It will be a public document.  Make sure that whatever you write is an accurate reflection of your views, and that you would be comfortable with it being made public.

7) Throughout the process, make sure you communicate with your stakeholders. Communicate honestly and forthrightly with your clients, customers, funders, board members, and others in your sphere about the issues raised in the media and your response.   Enlist their help in getting the word out about your perspectives.

 There is no magic bullet to recovering from a media firestorm.  But it’s doable—with patience, persistence, and powerful communications with both the media and all of your stakeholders.

Mischer could have been a jerk–he was greatly inconvenienced–but instead he couldn’t have been nicer. He saw I felt so badly and he tried to make me feel better.   It’s something that has stuck with me and I was reminded of it again when watching the Oscars  last week.  It appeard that Mischer’s crew was having trouble with the microphones.  At times, the sound sounded well, off.  I cut him a huge break because I remembered how kind he’d been to a young nobody.

More companies and organizations ought to heed that lesson.  Being nice to your customers, your employees and your partners builds up good will.  It’s so obvious but so many enterprises fail to heed it.  It happens everywhere: the rude receptionist at the doctor’s office who is doing you a favor by making an appointment; or the telecom company that makes you jump through multiple prompts on their phone system to get you to a live person who, when you do speak to them,  asks for the same information all over again.  BTW: none of their prompts addresses your issue.

These are the kinds of things that make or break a reputation.  PR could stand for Perfect Reputation. All the effort on social media to engage customers or the carefully crafted PR campaigns won’t change your image if your product doesn’t work and your team is rude.  It’s that simple. 

Don Mischer–thanks for being a good guy and teaching me a valuable lesson.  And I loved the Oscars.

Last week the Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell backed away from a controversial abortion bill that only a week before seemed to be gathering steam.   The bill would have called for an invasive ultrasound to be performed before any abortion could occur.  What started out as a debate about limiting the access to abortion and fetal rights within a week became  a discussion of government intrusion.  How did that happen?  Framing.  Women’s groups and others opposed to the bill changed the tone and substance of the conversation. 

The opposition started calling the use of the transvaginal ultrasound, which is required to be able to measure gestational age of the fetus within the first three months, state sponsored rape.   Strong stuff.  The concept of the government literally intruding inside a woman’s body was too much.   Now the very politicians, who have framed themselves as defending the public from government heavy handedness, were now sponsoring a bill that represented the ultimate in “Big Brother.”    The bill died. 

Framing messages has never been more important than in today’s fast paced, 24-7 media environment where it is so challenging to get people’s attention.   Those who are masters of framing win the day.  Public relations practitioners and advertisers  have known this for a long time.    

What are frames?  According to the Frameworks Institute, a Washington, DC- based communications research organization focused on the nonprofit sector, frames are  “organizing principles.  [Framing is] the way a story is told that triggers shared and durable cultural models that people use to make sense of the world. ”  

We all come to issues with frames that have been built in our minds from our experiences and beliefs.   Whether we are making decisions on what car to buy, what candidate to support or whether we are for or against a particular issue, we do so through the frames we have constructed. 

That is why when creating messages, it  is important to understand how target audiences may already frame an issue.  Framing messages involves understanding:

• What are common beliefs/values/understanding held by people in relation to your issue, cause or product?
• Who and how are these beliefs/values/understanding shaped?
• What has been the conversation around  your issue, cause or product?

According to the FrameWorks Institute, there are eight elements that help construct strong frames and I’ve summarized them in the chart below:  

 The VA case is an example of using all of them well.  First, the bill’s opponents led with the commonly held belief that government should not be intrusive in our private lives.  They used a powerful metaphor to make their point comparing the ultrasound provision to rape.  The messengers included women legislators as well as late night comedians and others who could command attention.  The tone was strong.   They painted a powerful picture showing the ultrasound probe, which many of the bill’s own architects did not understand that this was not the “jelly on the belly” kind of ultrasound at all.    The solution was clear: kill the bill. The framing tied into the larger debate about the role of government in our lives and privacy. And finally, they presented the hard and cold facts.   This was text book.

Before you launch your next campaign or product, step back and think about how your audiences already are framing the issues.  Then you will be able to evaluate whether you need to stay within that frame or reframe the conversation.  Doing so will make your efforts far more effective.  Just ask Governor McDonnell.

What are some examples that you have about good or bad framing?  

Why is it that people cannot say what they really mean?  Take, for example, the HR representative who says, “We’ll keep your resume on file,” when they don’t plan to consider you at all; or the reporter who responds to a pitch by saying, “thanks, I’ll keep it in mind,” when what she plans to do with the email is hit delete.  In this age of uncivil conversation, this may be one of the most uncivil conversations there is.  

On the face of it, this kind of response looks quite polite. It is designed not to offend.  But actually, it shows a lack of respect because it is dishonest.   It sets a false expectation–maybe they will call me when another opening occurs or maybe this reporter will do a story down the road. 

For the HR person, it might be better for them to thank the applicant for their interest in XYZ Company and then say that the experience level doesn’t match what they are looking for.  In the case of the reporter a simple, “Thanks but I’m not interested” is sufficient.  This kind of direct, yet friendly communication lets the other person know exactly where they stand so they can move onto to something else. 

Being direct, however, doesn’t mean being nasty.  It is important to keep this kind of communication on a neutral plane, without judgment. Stay away from personal attacks and focus on the facts.  As long as it is not mean,  honest communication will be constructive and will help someone far more than sugar coating.  Being mean will cause the listener to become defensive or angry and not to hear the positive intent behind what you say.   

I’ll never forget going in for a performance review in my first real job.  I was working as an executive assistant in an office.  I hated the work and it showed.  I was surly and had a really bad attitude.  My work was ok but my demeanor was not and my boss told me so, saying “If you can’t do what I ask on these tasks, why should I give you more responsibility in front of clients?”  And she was right.  I changed by attitude and was promoted six months later.  Moreover, that was a valuable lesson.

Honesty tempered with compassion is always the best policy.  What do you think?

 There is not much I can say more about the Susan G.  Komen Foundation  debacle that hasn’t already been said.  They stepped in it and were unprepared for the push back and fall out.  But at the core of this mess is that Komen lost sight of what they were all about.   And that was why there was such an outcry.   In the Twitter and Facebook age, that outcry was immediate and fast, causing a fire so hot that Komen had to reverse its decision about withdrawing funds from breast screenings at Planned Parenthood, so as not to be consumed by it.    Yesterday, the architect of this misguided strategy,  Karen Handel, resigned.   

Unfortunately for them, the fire is still smoldering. The Komen Foundation now finds itself in serious repair mode and has allegedly hired high priced PR help to assist them.  They have a lot of work to do to rebuild their reputation.  They have a lot of explaining to do with the donors and supporters, like me, who once held them in high regard.

Reputations aren’t created, they are earned.  Komen was successful, in part, because donors, large and small, trusted them; trusted that their interest was in women’s health not politics.  Organizations like Komen were respected  because they took the high road.  That trust and good will has evaporated after so many years of excellent work.   

The dollars they will be spending to repair their reputation are dollars that won’t go toward finding a cure, toward helping more women get the screenings they need, toward providing public education about this horrible disease.  The Komen Foundation will rebound but they will never be the same.  Trust broken is hard to fully regain.    Memories are long.

As someone who has run in the Race for the Cure every year for more than a decade, now I’m not sure I want to.  I am a firm supporter of  the fight against breast cancer but not so sure I believe in Komen is the best organization to lead the charge.

What do they need to do?

• Admit they made a mistake.   The resignation of Karen Handel is a good start but they must go further in affirming their mission and their commitment to stay above the political fray.
• Take a hard look at their corporate partnerships and programs to make sure they are aligned around their mission to fight breast cancer and aren’t about selling out to raise more money or pander to politicians.  Think Kentucky Fried Chicken’s Buckets for the Cure.
• Be transparent about where the dollars are coming from and how they are being spent in communities to help women and men defeat this terrible disease.  Where are all those millions going?
• Be humble.  Komen is successful and in some ways has been a victim of its own success.   They have attracted major corporation sponsorships.  They have built a strong brand which they defend vigorously.  There are cases of the foundation going after smaller nonprofits organizations that use the pink ribbon or the phrase “for the cure…” spending lots of money on legal challenges.   Kind of like Disney going after the day care center for illegally using Mickey Mouse.  Komen needs  to remember its roots and what it is  are really fighting for.

We will all be watching what they do next.   Let’s hope they can win back the trust of so many supporters whom they have so bitterly disappointed. 

A blog post by Michelle Singletary  in the Washington Post today notes that not all majors are created equal.  Her point is that any major without an internship or training more than likely will lead to no job at all.   Her post was pegged to an article in the Post a week or so ago about a study that reported the majors with the highest levels of unemployment–architecture was the highest with liberal arts majors not far behind. 

Singletary says that young people need to think carefully about what they major in and how much debt they go into to do so.  And she is also right about getting experience.   But I’d caution against picking a major just because it will get you a job.   The world is changing so fast that what’s hot now might not be in five years. 

But what  never goes out of favor are people who can think and write.  These two skills seem to be in short supply these days and they are vital in a knowledge-based economy.   In our pursuit of the practical major, our young people may be missing out on a certain intellectual discipline.   The valuable things about a college education are learning how to learn for a life time, learning how to work and collaborate with different types of people, and exposing and opening the mind up to new things.  

The next generation has got to think more creatively because the challenges they face are enormous. To address them, they must train their minds like an athlete training for a marathon.  A liberal arts education whether one majors in chemistry or Swahili or philosophy offers an excellent regimen to prepare young people for the next 50 years.   The rapid pace of change we are experiencing means that they are preparing for industries that don’t yet exist, to solve problems that we haven’t yet defined in a world that will probably look a lot different than what we know today. 

 So back to folks who want to go into PR and communications.  To be effective, you have to be able to quickly grasp the complexities of the industry or field in which are you working.  You have to be able to read and understand people.  You have to be able to think on your feet and deliver messages effectively.  And you have to be curious, asking questions about what you see and hear.  And finally, you must be a discerning consumer of data and information.  

I can’t think of any better training than a liberal arts degree.   For myself, I studied Russian language and literature.  I don’t use my major directly in my work now but it was a terrific education.  Learning another language opened up a whole new world.  It taught me to observe, to listen and to practice.  Reading great literature helped me improve my own writing and analyzing Dostoyevsky’s and Tolstoy’s characters developed my critical thinking skills.   Most of all, what I studied instilled in me a desire to know more about the world.

I never stopped learning either.  I take courses.  I read and I learn from other people.  And I’ve learned something from every job, even the less inspiring ones I had when I started out,  like  selling luggage and running shoes. 

So major in whatever you want but develop skills along the way–clear writing, critical thinking, and an understanding of people, economics and commerce, politics, and the environment.  That sounds like a solid liberal arts education.

Psychologists call this the negativity bias.   Negative messaging triggers feelings of anger, fear and anxiety—emotions that have helped humans survive over the centuries.   These emotions arouse the brain so we can take action: fight or flight to avoid something that might harm us. 

We tend to remember the insults that require action to defend against them, versus the compliment which does not.  Ruthann Weaver Lariscy, a professor in the department of advertising and public relations in the Grady College at the University of Georgia, in a discussion on negative ads in politics for CNN, notes that negative messages are also often more complex than positive ones,  meaning that the brain spends more time processing them, and that causes them to stick.   A negative message about a candidate, for example, usually implies some comparison, whether overtly stated or not, and that requires more effort to absorb. 

So does this mean you should go negative?    Does it mean that you have to slam your competition?  No.  But understanding how our brains are wired to pay greater attention to the negative can help you frame messages to trigger emotional responses.    Here are some things to consider.

1)  Understand what your target audiences value, in relationship to the cause you espouse or the products and services you promote.   Understand what keeps your audience up at night when it comes to your issues.  For example, your donors may not relate to the experience of homelessness, but they may be worried about their own jobs and economic stability and whether they will lose their home.  Or if your company makes face cream, your target user may be concerned about the effects of aging and what they believe they are losing as a result.  These concerns could provide a hook for messages for specific initiatives or campaigns.

2) Understand what you are FOR before going negative.  It is important to be clear about what you stand for and what values your organization or company holds.  Negative messaging may get attention and air time but, in the end, you have to have a cause or product from which people derive a benefit.  A mid-sized accounting firm, for example, may hold as one of its values the very personal way that it deals with and serves its customers.  In its messaging, it might emphasize that, unlike larger firms where the customer is just a number, they know all their customers by first name.    The negative differentiates the firm from the larger more impersonal firms while highlighting the virtues of the smaller firm. 

3) Fear and anger really do work, especially on motivating people to do something quickly.  Some of the most effective fundraising campaigns have focused on what might be lost or in danger of fading away.  When Congress threatened to take away National Public Radio’s funding a few years ago, NPR saw its donations increase dramatically.    And conversely, when Bank of America said it would charge fees on debit cards, an act that reinforced an already commonly held perception that big banks were greedy, customers revolted and the bank reversed its position.  Similarly, Verizon dropped a plan to charge  a “convenience” fee for one-time bill payments within 24 hours after it was met with a storm of criticism—and an announcement that federal regulators would be taking a closer look.

As you consider your own organization or company’s positioning, understand the power of negative messages.  But use it carefully.  Triggering powerful emotions can lead to change and higher sales, but it can also backfire.

What do you think?  Does negative messaging work?

 We already are already a polarized and fractured society.  We misunderstand each other because we don’t communicate effectively.  Eliminating the need to connect personally with other humans increases isolation and pushes us further away from the niceties that are the glue that helps to bind us together as a society.  

When we don’t interact directly with other people, we become like athletes whose muscle mass has declined from lack of use.  We have forgotten how to work our communications and persuasion muscles.  All you have to do is look at the dysfunction, distrust and dissatisfaction in Congress.

The other day as I did a number of errands, I realized that I didn’t have to talk with another person the entire day.  At the grocery store, I checked out using the automated cashier.  At the parking garage, there was no attendant–just my card with its metallic strip that tells the machine how much to charge me.  Back inthe office, I had numerous conversations and interactions via email, twitter and Facebook and didn’t utter a single sound.  It was efficient but very unsatisfying.  

 A machine doesn’t smile at you or tell you a joke or ask you about your family.   No wonder there is a whole industry of coaches, counselors and therapists that has arisen to help people reach out, listen, and communicate.  

To be sure, dealing with people can be inefficient, frustrating and error prone.  But the benefits of more efficient transactions don’t outweigh what we are losing.  Happiness is rooted in meaningful connections with others that build trust. 

What do you think?

Tops on my hall of shame this week is a Rockville doctor whom I won’t name.  Why does she get this esteemed spot?  For starters, her office staff was rude and insensitive. They moved a scheduled appointment because the doctor was going to be out of town,  and when I got there, told me that my appointment was actually a half an hour later than the time they told me to be there for THEIR convenience not mine.  Then they kept me waiting for nearly 2 hours with no explanation.  Only when I said I was leaving, did the doctor magically appear for the appointment.  And finally instead of the doctor calling me with lab results (all was well), I had to call several times and practically beg to speak to the doctor to answer my questions. 

That is just inexcusable but it is the state of affairs in medical offices.   Needless to say, I’m not going back to that doctor.  And I plan to tell her why.   Doctors, it seems, don’t see themselves as needing to be “customer friendly.”  The sad thing is that many have adopted the worst aspects of business in an effort to achieve greater efficiencies and have lost the human touch.   And patients/consumers put up with it because we often don’t know better than to demand better treatment. 

People tell me not to blame the doctor for bad office staff.  But like in any business, the front office staff is the face of the doctor.  They convey the first and last impression.  And the doctor sets the tone for the office.  Doctors are being squeezed left and right by insurance companies.  But when people have a choice, as I do, they will vote with their feet and that’s not good for the bottom line. 

What companies or enterprises would top your customer service wall of shame? And why is customer service and caring so hard to find in the medical field these days? 

And if you have a candidate for the Customer Service Hall of Fame or Wall of Shame, please share it.