PR FROM THE BEACH

Five awkward questions about the future of PR

Last year I gave a webinar for PRIA, the Public Relations Institute of Australia covering five awkward questions for the profession. As my blog languished during 2015, I thought I might pose some of the questions here via my edited notes for the session. To listen to the webinar  you'll have to head over to the PRIA site, but in the meantime, here's a long read covering a few of the issues I believe our profession must tackle in 2016.

Up Periscope or Down Meerkat - will public relations dare to win?

I can honestly say I haven't been this excited about a new network or app since Twitter launched. With the advent of live streaming video apps, Periscope and Meerkat, a whole world of possibilities opens up for public relations and communication professionals - if they dare. And, the chances are,  these apps will be the tipping point that shifts us even further away from text to total visual communication.

In case you haven't caught them yet, Meerkat and Periscope have been slugging it out in the live streaming space for the last week. Meerkat, launched to much tech joy earlier this year, allows you to broadcast live to your community - and the world at large - as well as schedule and tweet the fact that your doing it.  So far there have been AMAs (Ask Me Anythings), people's breakfast, dinner and tea, think pieces, observations, kids, cats, dogs and camps. I've developed a liking for a few seconds of sunrise and have shared the sun coming up over Rangitoto with people around the world still struggling through the night before.  Meerkat was the tech darling until (key change) Periscope, bought by Twitter, was launched five days ago. It does the same thing, except your footage is saved for replay. As a Twitter product it's fast gaining traction, so much so that the tech world is predicting the death of Meerkat, even though it is still in its infancy. Personally, the Mark Twain quote (or misquote)  'reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated' could be applied here as there's life in Meerkat yet.

So, that's the scenario - what's the potential? For public relations and communication management, simply enormous. Live stream your story to your community as it happens.  Let them see inside your place warts and all. Manage your crisis comms as it unfolds. It is the ultimate tool for organisational transparency and, if you don't build it in to your communications, someone else will. Whether they stream their conversation with your receptionist, broadcast during a factory tour, or filming their hospital dinner, this new 'live tv' will become our reality and our norm before you know it.

At a PR training course I delivered in 2006, I introduced newly launched Twitter as an essential communication channel - and lifeline - for PR.  News, crisis, issues, customer care - you name it, Twitter had the potential to deal with it all and for the first time you could use a network from anywhere. Sadly, those attending found it hard to believe and were reluctant to experiment.  The video apps launched this year have the same potential for good - and for bad. Periscope is already proving to be the harsher, more unkind environment. Meerkat has the better quality streaming but then you can only save your stuff to camera roll. There are ups and downs with both. Whatever happens to them as businesses, as a channel, network or communications tool, together they've changed the game. Let's hope PR isn't so slow to get on board this time.  Go on, I dare you - get out there and experiment.

 

Did Google's gifs shred media relations for good?

This week Google changed the media relations game. Now, it seems, we can send a cheery gif to mainstream media (via blog or our channel of choice) that expresses not only our organisation's perspective of the news story or issue but also a visual insight as to how we feel about it all.  

I have to say hats-off to Rachel Whetstone, SVP Communications and Policy at Google for her creative and honest approach.

Probably only Google - or possibly Facebook - could have got away with such a response at the moment but I suspect that other organisations will happily follow her lead as mainstream media diminishes in power and influence.

In the last year or so, other organisations have tentatively attempted to use their websites and other channels to correct the balance when it comes to mainstream media stories - even if it isn't with the panache displayed by Google's VP. All organisations are news publishers as well as news providers and so, as publishers, they can tell their own story, own their own narrative and explain their perspective on things. That's not to say that everyone will agree with their version of the story or even their perspective, but at least they have the opportunity to disagree with it at source rather than see a fragment, a smidge of commentary or a scanty quote buried in a third party's interpretation of a situation.

Over the decades, the journalist's call has struck dread in the hearts of many organisations - not because they don't want to comment or engage but because they know the chance of fair representation or balanced comment is remote. Publications and journalists alike arrive on the doorstep with an agenda (commercial or political) and will, in many instances, adjust the story to fit their predetermined frame - yet few practitioners have been brave enough to challenge the approach of those who are simply trolling for a tale.

Thankfully, journalistic integrity still exists - harder to find - but there nonetheless. For those journalists, concerned with fair reporting, breaking stories that inform, expose or prompt change, an insouciant organisational attitude will be unhelpful and damaging for all involved. 

It will be absorbing to watch the coming transformation. Will  journalists challenge the developing 'new norm' and will spokespeople be brave enough to challenge old school traditions in media relations? We shall see - but I suspect it may be some time before the evolution is complete.

 

 

 

 

Je Suis Charlie - Nous Sommes Charlie

 

The murders of 12 people at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in France yesterday have left 12 families bereaved and bereft. In Egypt, Al-Jazeera journalists are still held in jail.Worldwide, in 2014, 61 journalists were killed. Everyday, around the world, people are being killed for speaking out, for not agreeing, for holding a different opinion or belief. 

The magazine satirises everyone - religions (of all kinds) politicians (of all kinds) and any topic, person or subject deemed worthy of lampooning. Since the murders, debate on the perceived 'rights and wrongs' of Charlie Hebdo content has been heated - here in New Zealand, remarks by a former broadcaster have prompted a storm of social protest.

But the focus should not be on debating the rights and wrongs of content. Instead, words and images that accurately describe the evil men who perpetrated this crime should be chosen with care. They are not fighters for a cause, warriors in a war or any other of the descriptors assigned to them.

They are murderers, pure and simple, who took the lives of 12 people and injured seven others. Their actions contravene civil and religious laws. They will be caught and granted a fair trial.

As for the rest of us, such murders should not constrain our thinking or our speech. The spontaneous vigils held throughout the night of the murders showered sparks of hope on a dark day - would that such vigils continue for the thousands upon thousands around the world currently at the mercy of other ruthless murderers.  

I would urge you to use your words to affect change - write on behalf of those, like the Al Jazeera journalists, imprisoned for doing their job. If you don't know where to start, then Amnesty International can guide you. Write to your politicians and media urging them to do what they can to encourage, rather than suppress freedom of speech and the spread of ideas. Speak out when someone is hounded on social media for an opinion or idea that contradicts, satirises or challenges convention. 

As Edmund Burke possibly remarked: 

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

Nous Sommes Charlie - nous devons tous parler.

 

 

Ebola: Drafting crisis road maps for roads we have never walked before

 

Picture: Link to BBC shot of Ebola community information poster

There is an inevitability to the spread of misinformation. When threatened, we grasp at shadows of information, rumoured half-truths, glimpses of intelligence - or seeming intelligence - that might simultaneously warn and protect us. 

For many months the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa gained little, if any, traction in global mainstream media. Small pockets of coverage would break out sporadically but only in recent weeks has the spread of information reached epidemic proportions. Sadly, much information is 'misdiagnosed', harmful rather than helpful to those currently and potentially involved.

Leading Ladies - why the future of business is female

With the number of women on boards at woefully low levels in many parts of the world, it is unsurprising that initiatives designed to increase representation are being introduced. Trouble is, these initiatives move at a glacial pace and the big loser isn’t women - it is business itself.

The significant finding in the recently published Ketchum Leadership Communication Monitor  (alongside the poor performance of leaders in general) was ‘a new leadership model, driven by the new breed of ‘Leadership eVangelist’, centered on a more ‘feminine’ leadership archetype and based on a set of clear guiding principles’.

In short, the study found that effective communication is critical but leaders aren’t performing against expectations. However, when present, female leaders outperform male leaders when it comes to the most important ‘leader attributes’ of leading by example, communicating in an open and transparent way, admitting mistakes, bringing out the best in others and in their calm handling of controversial issues or crises.

Beware the creeping algorithms softly invading your privacy

Hot on the heels of the EU Court of Justice ruling around the 'right to be forgotten', I attended the Auckland Writers' Festival debate with Iraqi/English scientist Jim Al-Khalili, Dutch historian Frank Dikotter, New Zealand privacy expert Bob Stevens, and British broadcaster, writer and comedian Sandi Toksvig.  

Under scrutiny was the topic 'Is privacy an outdated concept' and, while Jim and Bob made some interesting points around the nature and history of privacy, Sandi and Frank won the night (for me at least) with their arguments in favour of retaining and strengthening rights to privacy both online and off.

The right to be forgotten - can PR truly deal with data?

This week's ruling by the European Union's Court of Justice that stressed individuals have the 'right to be forgotten' will inevitably cause Google some serious headaches. But they will not be alone. Public relations practitioners too will need to determine who among their stakeholders will need to be 'forgotten' following this decision.

The EU court ruling has far reaching consequences. For instance, if it is my right to be forgotten then should all saved tweets be destroyed at my request? My Facebook comments eliminated? Any Snapchat screen shots destroyed?

In true Fellowship...

 

• 
• 

It's been a very busy couple of months with some great personal highlights. As a rule, I tend not to post the personal stuff on here but it was a special moment at the end of May when I was inducted as a Fellow by the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand at the Annual Awards.  I was created a Fellow by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations in 2005, so have the honour of being a Fellow on both sides of the world. 

Straight after the PRINZ Conference and Annual Awards,  it was off to Helsinki for the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management AGM. The new board was elected and I'll be serving as GA Secretary for a further two years, under the leadership of Chair Anne Gregory who will be the first woman to lead the GA.  With the next World Public Relations Forum in Madrid in 2014, the newly launched GA Comm Prix Awards gaining momentum and work progressing on the Melbourne Mandate there are exciting - and busy times ahead.

Not if, but when: the radical reflection and PR rethink waiting around the corner

Imagine it is this time next year. Or even the year after when all the bugs are ironed out of the new web-enabled devices that will pop into Christmas stockings this December. Your organisation has some visitors arrive. They are all wearing Google Glass. What do you do? Ask them to remove their eyewear or accept that your interactions are likely to be live-streamed or captured on video to be shared with their stakeholders? 

Or you're serving in a restaurant. The customers come in, again, with wearable transmitting devices. Do you quietly present them with their meal or, as was the case last year, create a scene that ends in physical assault because the augmented-reality digital eye-wear cannot be removed?

In the same way that ten years ago the developments on the web disrupted the way we communicate and interact with others, bringing us to today's point of ubiquitous mobile engagement, the next wave of wearable (or implanted) devices  will change forever not just the way we communicate, but the way we live. I wonder how many people, organisations, businesses and governments are ready for this shift?

 

There are countless scenarios that can be conjured when you think about the effect the next wave technologies will have on our lives and, from a professional standpoint, they are scenarios that all public relations and communication practitioners should be rehearsing before they find themselves, and their organisations, 'always on'.  It is a big leap for most - a leap highlighted by the recent instruction to journalists not to tweet from a press conference. Even today this is a redundant instruction, but how would the organisation concerned react to the press conference being live streamed through a device such as Glass? The journalist attends a press conference as the representative of others. The expected delay between briefing and publication is the assumption of the host, based on older communication speeds and use of technology.  As a journalist, my expectation would be to get the information back as soon as possible, and, if that means as it happens, then all the better.

The reality is not what shall we do if this happens, it is actually what are we going to do when this happens - and that 'when' is just around the corner. It's not just Google Glass either. Many companies are working on wearable devices and the next 'next wave' is likely to include invisi-wear, such as contact lenses, implants and the like. Unlike today when people at least have to speak to their phone, pretty soon you simply won't know who is communicating 'elsewhere' when you meet as the process will be seamless and simultaneous.

I meet with a lot of people who debate and discuss their 'social media strategy'. Frequently it revolves around tactics on the big networks - Facebook, Twitter and the like rather than creating a digital strategy that underpins their organisational and communcation goals. Rarely does it include Google+ or Hangouts and it inevitably involves a discussion around how to convince the organisation involved that today's communication channels are chaotic, concurrent, confused and cannot be controlled. 

Over the last ten to twelve years I've said many times that the available technologies we have at our disposal don't simply transform the way we communicate - they transform the organisations themselves. That's where the biggest changes occur. Individuals and organisations that meet with success in social communication have inevitably undergone this transformative process from the inside out.  They have a clear understanding of their role, provision or service, they have identified the communities that are critical to their licence to operate then set about forming networks of engagement mutually beneficial for all those involved. Yet even those organisations will find themselves disturbed once again by the device-shifts ahead as the reality of what we do rather than what we say becomes the primary organisational asset it should have always been.

As a matter of urgency, I would hope that practitioners convince their organisations to focus on their inner workings and deliverables. To focus on their employees and how to equip them to be 'always on'. On their suppliers and customers and agreed levels of acceptable shareability. 

As the mobile phone is replaced in its ubiquity by the wearable or implanted device the question every public relations professional should be asking is this: how ready are you for the technology waiting around the corner and the change it will bring to your organisation?