PR FROM THE BEACH

Fighting the politics of fear

There's much water under the bridge since I last wrote here. Billions of words have been aired on Brexit, trillions more on Trump and now we face a French election that could - if Le Pen wins - have devastating effects on both France and Europe. In the UK, an election is brewing and here in New Zealand, away from the world’s focus, we too will go to the polls. Not such a drama as elsewhere, but one that is beginning to feature disturbing echoes of the vitriol and nationalism that have pervaded countries elsewhere.

In the US, it was inevitable that Trump would win. They were never going to vote for a woman - as a country, the US is just not grown up enough to do so. Whether the US will vote for a woman in the future is yet to be seen - for now they are stuck with a trigger-happy President, seemingly more occupied with a love of personal power and showmanship than with the state of the people he governs. Just shy of the 100 day mark, I have yet to see evidence of any improvement for the people he promised to help - just a show-and-tell of signatures on executive orders that have led to immediate misery for many. I thought by now that an impeachment process might have begun - but then he let off some missiles and the fawning were awed by what they described as the ‘beauty’ of this violence. 

I have to confess that as the latter half of 2016 unfolded, I found myself moving away from the keyboard, too angry, disheartened and powerless at the twists and turns of fortune that occurred throughout the world to add to the millions of words swirling through our newsfeeds.

The common thread through all the machinations - Brexit, US elections, France and now here at home - is fear. The political peddlers of fear have been ferocious in their creation of a popular sentiment that closing borders, isolating ourselves, holding others in deep suspicion  and threatening others with ‘tit-for-tat’ retaliation is the only way forward. Even as deep tragedies have unfolded - from Syria to Sudan - the insidious shift towards national selfishness has left millions suffering. Dictators have risen and continue to punish, oppress and murder those who oppose them, while the rest of the world squabbles inside their borders, only looking beyond when threats or acts of terror look set to directly affect them. The peddlars have used the emotion of fear for their own purposes, which is, for the most part, to secure their power and position in the world.

So what can we do, as individuals, to change the downward spiral of circumstances with which we are faced? Perhaps the first thing is to accept that we can make a change, by speaking out, by using our precious vote, by discussing with others the various points of view and not existing in a filter bubble of our own making. 

Deciding on governments, based on fearmonger policies hawked on the hustings by those anxious to retain or regain power, is not in the best interests of a population. In the UK, the shrewdly strategic Theresa May has made this snap election about Brexit but the reality is that the next elected government will enact more than a retreat from Europe. For the next five to six years, the people of the UK will have to live with whatever ‘terms and conditions’ are bundled up behind the bombast of the ‘winners’ and, as it stands, personal freedom, economic stability, heath, education and wellbeing will all suffer the consequences. Society is a contract - to quote Edmund Burke - and when we vote we are signing that contract, hopefully for better - more frequently for worse.

It is easy for politicians to latch on to one simple thread, pulling and pulling until it unravels the sensible thinking of the electorate. The common thread in Europe and beyond has been immigration, an easy wall of words to hide behind when the actual cause of the problems is governance itself and the policies being implemented over time. With every news story I am reminded of George Orwell’s 1984 - the phoney wars, the austerity, the persecution of those ready to speak out, all cloaked in a culture of amorphous threat. Edmund Burke - again - said: “"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” The need for the good to associate, to speak of tolerance and equity, has never been so great.

The tragedy of Syria began when, in 2011, people began to speak out against their President.  It has become a proxy battleground for many in the period since then, but at its heart, it is still a battle for freedom and self determination. So for those, like us, going to the polls, speak out, discuss, reason with each other - don't succumb to phoney fear. Debate and look forward to what might come of a particular set of policies or a particular person in charge.  Make your voice heard while you still may. The smallest whisper can make a difference.

 

 

On the slaying of dragons and Brexit's headless chickens

In business, we have a wealth of information available to us on leadership. From Harvard to Oxford there are tomes filled with guidance designed to develop those in leadership positions. Yet here we are. Brexit vote complete and a whole country is now 'steered' by a coop of headless chickens.

At a time when true leadership is vital, the UK parliament is peopled with buffoons and xenophobes fighting like rats in a sack for power and position rather than turning their attention to their job of serving the country and the people they represent. Cameron's last act - putting everything into a holding pattern and neatly avoiding triggering Article 50 - was probably the only thing he could do the morning after the results came through.

Wouldn't it have been tremendous if, at that point, his colleagues turned their attention to the good of the people, rather than immersing themselves in the machinations of a leadership battle, leaving the populace facing the ineptitude of  jumped-up journalist Johnson and the glacial Gove. As for the spectacle of Farage speaking at the EU Parliament - once again I had to step away from the keyboard for a while so as to not write in anger.  His behaviour, demeanour and words were utterly shameful and, wittingly, unwittingly or simply half-wittedly, echoing an infamous phrase attributed to Adolf Hitler.

The 'Leave' campaign presented the UK with a dragon. The beast was supposedly responsible for all the ills of the country and the suffering of the people and, once slain, all would be well in the kingdom. Pens would be drawn at the ballot boxes. At a stroke a new day would dawn. The beast, though mythical, was slain. But there were no knights to rally the people. Instead, the dubious and incompetent squires bickered their way into new battles of their own making and there they remain, squabbling, self-serving and divisive, ripping out the heart and cutting off the head of the country they were - and are - supposed to serve.

There isn't a single leader among them. Not one capable of stepping up to the mark and healing the bitter division that this process has caused. And it is the division, hatred and prejudice that this process has created that truly breaks my heart because those are the things that will take the longest to heal - scars that will take decades to fade.

A leader needs many qualities - listening, empathy, understanding, foresight, courage, wisdom and tenacity to name but a few. In business, leaders are nurtured, trained and the best of them understand they must learn continuously. The headless chickens of the Westminster coups say much, know little and apparently care less.

St George, a Syrian immigrant born of Greek parents who ended up a Roman soldier, was named England's patron saint by King Edward III in 1327. A patron saint is named not because they come from the country that chooses them but because they embody the characteristics the kingdom wants to project to the outside world. On current form, those in charge in the UK - and I use the term 'in charge' loosely - should perhaps take a moment to look at the legends and behaviours of this quintessentially 'English' saint who also stands as a nominal spiritual guard over other countries in Europe. Perhaps then they might realise that the characteristics they are currently presenting to the British people and the outside world belittle and shame us all.

*Image - wikicommons - Mummers  of St Albans enact St George and the Dragon

Why you need public relations

Public relations builds and sustains the relationships we need to keep our licence to operate - but what is a 'licence to operate' and why should your organisation care?  This three minute video and three minute read gives you the reasons why your licence to operate should be at the forefront of your thinking - and why you need public relations to help you keep it.

 

Unlike a statutory licence, granted by an authority - for example, government, association, academic institution - a 'social' licence to operate is the ongoing acceptance of an activity undertaken by an organisation by the community in which it operates. It is the permission we give to others to do something, make something, sell something or run something. Communities consist of many stakeholders - for example, employees, customers and suppliers in a commercial organisation -or voters, ratepayers, politicians and service providers in a public sector organisation. How the community and the organisation relate to each other will dictate the strength of the licence to operate.  

Imagine a manufacturer of goods. Customers want to know workers are not exploited, conditions are good and pay is fair. Should exploitation take place, customers will not buy the product. No sales means the licence to operate is withdrawn - not because of quality or price but because of organisational behaviour. The manufacturer would not be considered trustworthy, customers would be unsatisfied with the behaviour and any loyalty eroded. Add to that consequential reputational damage and the ability to conduct business becomes impossible.

Next, imagine a government. Over years, promises and policies put forward at the time of election remain unfulfilled. Voters have suffered economic and social hardship as a result. Jobs are few, houses are scarce, health care is negligible and everyone is disillusioned. Come the election, the sitting government is voted out, no longer legitimate and licence to operate withdrawn. Again, erosion of trust, satisfaction - even the loyalty and commitment of  long established supporters - results in a relationship breakdown and no renewal of licence.

Without a good relationship between an organisation and its communities the licence to operate is eroded and eventually withdrawn. Sometimes by the community itself - for example no purchases or a withdrawal of labour - and sometimes by legislative default - for example the UK's recent sugar tax or today's announcement in New Zealand of plain packaging on cigarettes.

A licence to operate is nothing new or revolutionary. With its roots in the Ancient Greek concept of moral legitimacy, to the social contract theory of the 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, last century saw further development of the principle in political, social and environmental thinking. The notion that we all do what we do only by the permission of others has gained further ground with the advent of mass digital engagement. Available technologies give voice to communities and empower them to force change, taking back those 'licences' should organisations fail to perform.  

The New Zealand Sustainable Business Council produced an excellent paper on the 'Social Licence to Operate' which makes very interesting reading and one extract illustrates the concept well:

"Society’s confidence in business has been shaken. The global financial crisis, which saw whole economies teetering on the bridge of bankruptcy, a massive destruction of personal wealth and unemployment at historically high levels called into question the right of business to operate in such an apparently uncontrolled and unregulated manner. This loss in confidence in business gave rise to a number of public uprisings, the most prominent of these being the ‘occupy movement’. This movement gained momentum using social media to organise protests and communicate their view that large corporations and the global nancial system control the world in a way that disproportionately bene ts a minority (hence the slogan ‘we are the 99%’), undermines democracy and is inherently unstable. While this movement is seen by many as a radical movement, increasingly connected, informed and financially comfortable parts of our global society are now demanding to see greater ethics, accountability and transparency from the business community. The context in which business is operating in is also changing. Global consumers have greater expectations for the role companies should play in giving back to society."

So why do you need public relations to help you sort all this out? Because our business is organisational relationships. We identify the communities and stakeholders, assess expectations and perspectives, investigate organisational values, culture and behaviour and then develop and implement strategies that will help build and sustain the relationships in question. That involves communication, behaviour and understanding - and courage on our part to challenge that rambunctious CEO or council leader and tell them the culture has to change or the behaviour has to stop. It also means us scrutinising your data, poking about in the corners of your reputation to see where cracks in the relationships are forming, alerting you and providing you with a means to repair the damage. It also means that we will be involved with reporting on the organisation's community impact, its sustainability and contribution to society - and if you are skeptical on that score, I'd suggest a visit to the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) to become familiar with what's ahead. 

So if you were wondering why you might need public relations, now you know. You need to keep your licence to operate and we can help you build and sustain the relationships you need to do just that.

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.

 

 

 

 

Good behaviour - the X Factor that keeps your licence to operate

Links to media.nzherald.co.nz

There's been a huge furore in the last 24 hours over New Zealand's X Factor, thanks to some ill-considered comments by husband-and-wife judging duo Natalia Kills and Willy Moon. Now, New Zealand On Air has announced it is withdrawing funding from the show, although they suggest they made their mind up about this before the controversy. Both judges will be replaced because of their remarks - and currently face a tirade of abuse themselves on their social accounts - much of it absolutely despicable. Elsewhere, the discussion rages around whether the whole thing was a hoax designed to boost the show's flagging ratings and we are left with a million suit-and-hair memes littering the web. All in all, it's a shambles. So who is to blame?

A question of equality - the case for International Women's Day

I've been intrigued by female colleagues grumbling about International Women's Day. One said she was always taught that if you put your mind to it, you could do anything you wanted to and that having a 'women's day' actually marginalised women. I'm sure that if you are fortunate enough to be in an environment where the hardest part of progress is making your mind up to do something, then yes, it is possible to succeed and make it happen. But if you are oppressed, marginalised, subjected to violence and control - well then the strongest mind is going to have difficulty 'getting on and succeeding'. It is certainly going to be tricky if you are one of the 62 million girls worldwide denied any form of education.

International Women's Day does more than celebrate a gender. Inequality remains rife even if the advantaged fail to recognise its existence.  Statistics from the UK's Independent newspaper and elsewhere paint a grim picture that all people (not just men or women) should read, understand and take action to change.

Every job, profession or paid pursuit seems to include an automatic wage gap between men and women - with women always the lower paid. Our own profession of public relations and communication management is no exception.  The CIPR is trying to address wage equality although the UK is not alone in this - it is a global problem that must be addressed across the world and across all types of work. 

Here, the Executive Director of the UN Women's explains it well:

 

We still have much to do - gender equality is a required condition for the success of any global agenda but it won't happen without a shift in the power relations between men and women. 

So celebrate International Women's Day - shout and make a noise. Don't belittle it - instead, draw attention not just to the inequalities that exist but the solutions that would see such inequalities resolved. When the clock rolls over at day's end, take what we've learnt from others and start making some changes. Then, we might just start to achieve an equal world for all.

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.

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?

Never release a hashtag into the wild - New York Cops weather social media storm

The New York Police Department walked straight into a social media storm today with the launch of their #myNYPD hashtag - proving once again that failure to analyse risks, issues and reputation before a social media campaign, then adjusting behaviour accordingly, leads to significant problems.

The Storify below is just a small taste of the backlash unleashed following the hashtag launch and it isn't showing any signs of improvement any time soon.  Some on social media who have had more positive experiences with the NYPD have rallied to their defence but analysing the tweets the commentary has been predominantly negative.

The moral of the story: Never release a hashtag into the wild without thinking about why you are running it in the first place and understanding that you have absolutely no control over its behaviour.

 

Expect data denouements to punctuate political performances

The news that the Obama official tweeting for some time under the username @NatSecWonk has been unmasked is no surprise.  They were bound to find him out in the end. The most interesting thing for me about the story was closeted in a simple sentence: 

"It said his travel and shopping habits had been profiled by parsing over 2,000 tweets"

This is an approach we will see more and more of in the months ahead as people become much smarter about using the data available to them. The trail we leave online is long and winding and the option of anonymity reduces by the hour.

Organisations - once they wake up to the fact - will increasingly use data mining to reach their stakeholders and, if they are savvy enough, stakeholders will use data mining to benefit themselves.

The rise of data journalism is not unexpected, but again, is mostly ignored by those who should have woken up to this approach many moons ago. 

So, data, data everywhere - when will they stop and think?