"A brand for a company is like a reputation for a person."

-- Jeff Bezos

Branding is all about personification -- giving human traits to things that aren't human.

If you think about it, Nike, or Disney, or the company where you work are no more than a stack of papers filed by a lawyer somewhere. They are legal entities created specifically so that their activities are considered separate from those of the people who formed them (for liability, tax and other reasons.)

But a stack of legal papers can't make decisions, or have a personality, or do anything but sit there. And we've established that the corporation is distinct from the people who created it or who run it; they can leave the company at any time. The only thing that really holds a corporation together is its shareholders -- and they're here today and gone tomorrow as well.

So really, there's no there there -- is there?

Well, yes and no.

Brands Create Continuity

You see, whenever a shareholder sells his or her stock in a company, the buyer has certain expectations of continuity. And the people the shareholders entrust to run the company are expected to maintain (and increase) the company's value by meeting these expectations -- not only in terms of sheer dollars and cents, but by having a predictable business model that shareholders can count on for the long term.

And that's where branding comes in. Branding communicates the continuity of a company's business model -- to shareholders, to customers, to employees. It says, "This is the kind of person we are -- if we were actually a person."

So Disney is family-oriented, fun, magical. Nike is outdoorsy, rugged, adventurous. And so on and so on. To the extent a company's products, advertising and other projections of itself support these traits, the brand has continuity -- which over time, can become a company's most valuable asset.

In this sense, it is like your reputation or mine.

Corporations as Wannabe Humans

But there's a point at which branding is not the same as reputation. At a certain point, we must face the fact that while people actually are human, corporations are merely wannabes. This has all sorts of implications for PR -- and specifically, for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs.

I help companies with their brands for a living. I think one reason I'm good at it is that I don't blow sunshine up people's behinds. So here's the deal:

Corporations are not human. And that's a good thing, because if they were human, they would be sociopaths. This isn't a cheap shot. A sociopath is a person who is interested only in their personal needs and desires. By definition, corporations are designed expressly to serve the interests of their shareholders -- and only those interests.

ROI of CSR

Yes, CSR programs can do good. The thing to keep in mind is, these programs only exist to the extent shareholders can be convinced that the spending will ultimately boost the bottom line -- like any other marketing expenditure. It's the equivalent of doing something good so someone will see you doing it.

People are smart enough to know when someone is doing good for the right reasons -- and they value these efforts far more than they value the efforts of those who do it for appearances' sake (like corporate brands).

So what does this mean in terms of dollars? Let's say you're a large corporation that spends $50 million annually on CSR. Now, let's say the public only values your spending about half as much as they do that of a grassroots organization whose motives are considered pure. Well, that means you're spending $50 million to buy $25 million worth of good will.

Maybe you're Exxon, and considering your reputation, this still sounds like a pretty good deal to you. Or maybe there are other places to better spend your money.

All of which is to say that a brand for a company is like a reputation for a person -- except when it's not. To keep your bearings, and hold on to your soul, in today's corporate world, it's important to know the difference.


Image source

Labels: brand strategy, branding, corporate social responsibility, csr, Marketing Views

A ruler can be persuaded through patience,
and a gentle tongue can break a bone.

-- Proverbs 22:4


I've never been the loud, brash, in-your-face type. As a child, I was naturally shy -- to the point where I was afraid to answer the front door of our house. I was introspective ... always drawing, writing, thinking.

Seems like a recipe for becoming a librarian, an actuary or a taxidermist (Norman Bates, anyone?). But instead, I ended up a newspaper reporter and, ultimately, a PR executive and spokesman for billion-dollar companies. I present to Fortune 1000 executives, speak to large audiences, and talk with classes of college students all the time.

So, did I change? Not really.

I say this to offer hope to those of you who are afraid you don't have the "outgoing personality" you need to succeed in public relations. Frankly, the PR field has too many surface smiles and surface thinkers, and not enough going on underneath. That's something we introverts can use to our advantage.

Introverts vs. Extroverts

Let me explain what I mean by an introvert. An introvert is not someone who can't do well with an audience. Many of the world's best actors, musicians and other performers are introverts. They do it because they love their work -- not because they love the crowds.

An extravert starts with the love of the crowd and works backward. What do I need to do to capture their attention?

An introvert starts with the love of the work and moves outward. What do I need to do to share this work with others?

In PR, extraverts are a dime a dozen. They're the ones who get off to fast starts in their careers, who seek out every opportunity to gladhand and namedrop, who learn a little about a lot of things and a lot of people. They spread themselves around and gauge their success by how many people they know (or appear to know.)

Introverts are the ones who actually find their employer's or client's business model fascinating. They take the time to study the company in depth; to understand the competition; to know what marketing strategies are working and not working in the space, and why. They're the ones who aren't satisfied with glib answers.

They're also the ones who have better long-term potential to form relationships of mutual respect with journalists and other influencers -- not to mention the CEOs of the companies they serve.

Share What's Inside

Talk to your clients and the media honestly, knowledgeably and with a genuine interest in your subject matter, and you don't have to be loud to have influence. A gentle tongue can break a bone.

The key for introverts is to recognize this and to fight through their shyness to let others know what they have to say. To borrow another proverb from the Bible, don't hide your light under a bushel. You've got a lot of talent to give; you just have to know where to put it.

Labels: extraverts, introverts, Marketing Views, pr

With its anniversary approaching, we've been asked to republish our list of nine ways to commemorate September 11. Here's the full post:

If you're like us, when an anniversary as important as 9/11 approaches, you want to do something, but you're not sure what. So as often as not, you just spend the day like any other.

Here are nine suggestions for commemorating 9/11 that may help you reconnect with that terrible day, as well as some of the valuable lessons it taught us (if in some cases we've already forgotten them):

1. Fly an American flag. Outside your door, on your lawn, or on your car. It's the one symbol that binds us, and we're all in this together.

2. Take time to reflect on the loved ones you have lost during your lifetime. Think about how much they meant to you; it will help you relate better to the emotions of the 9/11 victims' families -- as well as the families of all those who have died in war and terror in 9/11's wake.

3. Treat people the way you did in the days immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Don't honk your horn in traffic. Smile and say "good morning" to strangers you pass on the street. Call your friends and relatives just to tell them you care about them.

4. Listen at least twice as much as you talk. If you have a disagreement or confrontation with someone -- over politics, religion, work or relationship issues, sports, you name it -- try this exercise. Count it off in your head if you need to. Listening is learning; talking isn't.

5. Don't watch the major cable news channels. They simplify issues and stoke divisiveness to attract ratings; they're about the heat of ego rather than the light of reason. If 9/11 taught us anything, it's that the world needs more light and less heat.

6. Don't listen to talk radio. Same reason.

7. Don't read political blogs. Ditto.

8. Read the 9/11 Commission Report. We can best pay tribute to those lost, to those fighting, and to our own children by accepting our duty to be an informed citizenry. As Lee Hamilton says well, "In a democracy, public misperceptions carry an enormous cost."

9. Finally, read the Bill of Rights. Consider it carefully, savoring every word.

[This post is a Media Orchard Classic.]

[Image source]

I love journalists. Hell, I used to be a pretty good newspaperman myself, and the blogosphere has given me a chance to dabble in the discipline of journalism again here and there. I also work daily to convince CEOs who are suspicious of the media (is there any other kind?) that most journalists do their jobs with integrity. I annoy my corporate clients when I tell them what I believe: that you'll hear more heartfelt discussion of ethical questions in a newsroom than you'll ever hear in a boardroom.

Having stipulated all that, let's be real: Reporters are known to occasionally flip the script on their subjects.

By "flip the script," I mean they sometimes will give you the distinct impression they are writing something that will flatter you or otherwise serve your interests -- when all along they're planning to eviscerate you with the spiral binding on their reporter's notebook.

Is this ethical? Let's just say I've known reporters who feel bad about doing it. But frankly, it's a necessary part of good journalism. A classic example is brilliantly portrayed in the 2005 film Capote. In the movie, author Truman Capote struggles with his deception of killer Perry Smith; the scene where he refuses to admit to Smith that his book is called "In Cold Blood" is painful to watch.

Was Capote's behavior wrong? You tell me -- but it resulted in the greatest nonfiction book of the 20th century.

I'm no saint; I've done it myself. In fact, I won an award from the Associated Press Managing Editors of Texas the time I did it to televangelist Robert Tilton. Tilton was riding high and making millions when I talked with him in 1990. He hadn't done a media interview in years, and he chose me because he was convinced I was a naive kid who would buy the snake oil he was selling. I never lied to him -- but I also never said a word to disabuse him of the notion that I was that naive kid. My story was the beginning of the end of his ministry.

Of course, day-to-day examples of flipping the script aren't always this heroic. Sometimes people just get screwed.

So, as you prepare your CEO for that next big interview with the news media, what are the warning signs that a reporter plans to flip the script on you? Here are eight of them:

1. The journalist is vague about the story angle.

Reporters don't call you unless they have a pretty good idea what they're going to write about. For example, they might want to profile you as a fast-growing company in your industry, or they might want your take on a specific trend or controversy. If you ask them their angle and they mumble something that doesn't sound like a focused story idea, it might be because their real angle is that they think your CEO is a crook.

2. The journalist has a history of hard-hitting reporting or pointed commentary.

After being contacted by a reporter you don't know, the first thing you should do is Google them to see what kind of stuff they write. If you go through a half-dozen CEO profiles and find one coronation and five eviscerations, those probably approximate your odds.

3. The media outlet typically does not have nice things to say about people like you.

Be mindful of the slant of the publication. For example, alternative weeklies traditionally take an anti-business approach. Unless you're an upstart entrepreneur who is doing something disruptive to the status quo, this kind of outlet may not be for you. More and more mainstream media outlets are falling into political camps as well; if you're a non-profit organization dedicated to reducing carbon emissions or saving lab rats, don't go on Fox News unless you want your cause ridiculed before a national audience.

4. A competing media outlet has just said something nice about you.

Reporters hate getting beat on a story. They also hate doing the same story someone else just did. So if you've been the subject of some laudatory coverage, you're eventually going to meet up with a reporter who wants to knock you off your high horse. Be prepared.

5. The journalist is reluctant to tell you who else has been interviewed for the story.

You can learn a lot by asking a reporter who else he or she has interviewed for the story. For example, if the reporter has prepared for the upcoming meeting with your CEO by talking to a bitter business rival or even-more-bitter ex-wife, you might be in for a bumpy ride. If a reporter hems and haws when you ask the question, that might be all the answer you need.

6. The journalist is uncomfortable when asked his or her point of view.

It's often useful to ask the reporter his or her point of view on a controversial issue. Many reporters share their perspectives freely when their opinions are neutral or in alignment with yours. When they think you're full of it, on the other hand, they tend to ramble on about objectivity and how the "story is about you, not me." If they start talking like that, you're probably toast.

7. The journalist gives nonverbal clues that suggest deception.

The general clues people use to determine if someone is being deceptive (microexpressions, for example) are helpful in a face-to-face interview. When reporters are distant, make little eye contact, and seem overly protective of what they've written in their notebook, you might be in trouble.

8. The journalist makes it apparent that he or she has already done ALL of the reporting for the story -- except for talking to your CEO.

You're dead meat now. The reporter has lined up everything and just wants to fire away at you -- "I've discovered this document in your trash; I have the chatroom transcript; I talked to your mother-in-law; what's your response?" Duck and cover.

Even if you strongly suspect a journalist is planning to flip the script on you, that doesn't mean you should respond with a "no comment." In fact, you still need to provide the reporter with information and, in many cases, the CEO should go ahead with the interview.

But you'd better go into it ready -- focused for battle, talking points down cold, with both guns blazing. And record the conversation.

[This post is also at MarketingProfs.]

[This post is a Media Orchard Classic.]

[Image source]

If you were to ask 100 people on the street what professional group is the least honest, our guess is that the following would be the top three results (in no particular order):

1. Politicians
2. Lawyers
3. PR People

Of course, it's also true that while everyone says they hate Paris Hilton, she's still in every magazine on the newsstand every week. And most people still vote for politicians, hire lawyers, and so on.

So Media Orchard generally figures our occupation's less-than-sterling rep is something we needn't worry about too much.

But then news of the latest PR ethics stink wafts through the transom, forcing us to flee our tiny office -- and to at least say something.

The bad news came in threes last week:

1. The AP reported that HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy paid a writer $11,000 through a PR firm to write sympathetic articles that were published in The Birmingham Times.

2. Catherine Seipp wrote in National Review that a PR person once offered her money to write an article bashing a left-wing organization.

3. And Jim Sinkinson, publisher of Bulldog Reporter, opined that dishonesty has become a "trademark skill" for the public relations profession.

Wrote Jim:

A young summer intern in Bulldog Reporter's offices recently commented that public relations sounds like a fascinating profession -- one she'd like to consider entering, she continued, "except that you have to be able to lie -- and I wouldn't want to do that."

When PR spokespeople -- President Bush's press secretary, for example -- aren't being exposed for outright prevarication, they're being unmasked as inveterate deceivers. Only weeks ago, The Wall Street Journal's lead story blew the cover on PR-paid writers for pharmaceutical companies who ghost write articles for physicians. The good doctors in turn place the less-than-objective articles in prestigious medical journals, never crediting (i.e., hiding) the true author and sponsor...

If the truth really sets us free, if the truth makes the most powerful story, then why does PR's reputation for dishonesty prevail? Or, more directly, why do so many PR people so often use lies and deception as the foundation for their communications strategies?

We don't know, Jim -- but would you mind handing us that ball of twine beside you so we can hang ourselves?

OK, let's take a step back here. Why don't we examine the three bad-rep professions one at a time, and try to understand why each is so often associated with dishonesty.

POLITICIANS

This one's easy: If they didn't lie we would never elect them, because (1) we expect them to be perfect and they're not, and (2) we expect them to tell us everything we want to hear, so they do. Next --

LAWYERS

We have something in the United States called an adversarial legal system. This means that even guilty people get a defense, which means lawyers often know they're defending guilty people -- which means, in essence, they're lying and this lying is an inherent part of our legal system. Next --

PR PEOPLE

We've been straining our brains on this one, but we really can't come up with a good excuse for PR people. So after much thought and consideration, we've concluded that maybe a lot of PR people are just big fat liars.

And we think maybe something needs to be done about it.

Richard Edelman thinks so, too:

We cannot be seen to be corruptors of the media ... [W]e have to go further to prevent future misbehavior. I am calling for the key associations in the PR business around the world to consider licensing PR firms in their countries to do business. We have, for example, the APR accreditation process from the PR Society of America. That effort to assure professional standards of practice is fine as far as it goes.

But we need to go further, to have CEOs of PR firms sign onto a code of proper behavior, that forbids payments to reporters, that mandates transparency on arrangements with third party experts and that bars a media company from having a licensed PR firm in the family. These standards must be enforceable, with the group given power to expel transgressors, then to demand a public apology and remanding of questionable earnings to the aggrieved client.

I will attend the February 5 board meeting of PRSA and make this proposal. Can others who are similarly outraged and frustrated please help me with the wording of such a resolution, so that we have the means to protect our precious profession.

We're with you all the way, Richard. Thank you.

Update: Paul Holmes chimes in on the same point.

Technorati tags: Journalism, PR, Public Relations, Marketing

[This post is a Media Orchard Classic.]