Credit: http://www.controlstress.net/

Who’da thunk it? People are stressed out, and though it won’t cure the economy, communication may be the thing to calm nerves and make people more productive:

The majority of what experts are seeing is overwhelmed workers, often due to downsizing. And while they’re thankful to still have a reason to wake up in the morning, the burden of doing the jobs of two or three people is too much. The problem is, they’re so worried about losing their job that they tend to work many hours, often at the cost of other healthy activities such as working out, spending time with family and friends, and unwinding from the day.

Conversely, some people are feeling underutilized at the office, which leads them to ask whether their jobs are next to be eliminated, whether they’re valued members of the team, and whether they’re not trusted members of the company,” says Lickerman.The solution is simple: Higher-ups need to better communicate with each other and subordinates.

“Communication is dismal in corporate America,” Lickerman argues. “Entry-level employees trust the messages of top-tier management and their direct supervisors. Yet when a company rolls out a new initiative, internal communication is often the last thing they think about.”

Just having real conversations with employees about the state of the company and the security of their jobs can go a long way toward better morale and employee mental health, says Carson, who urges that those conversations should not take place in a group setting.

“Taking the time to check in and having an honest discussion with individuals is key to making people feel like they are respected, valued, and seen within the organization.”That may be especially true for young workers, many of whom are seeing the devastating effects of layoffs on their peers and family members for the first time in their professional lives.

“Unemployment is extremely stressful because the unemployed person may feel guilty and ashamed at no longer being a provider, while other family members can feel angry and helpless,” says Kerry Sulkowicz, organizational consultant, psychoanalyst, and founder and principal of New York-based Boswell Group. “The most important thing to do is to not suffer in silence. Open and honest communication about the stress—and its sources—may be the most important step to reducing it.”

via What Employers Can Do To Combat The Changing Nature Of Workplace Stress – Resources – Portfolio.com.

Whether you think it necessary or not, now is the time to have a (nonthreatening) talk (and listen!) with your employees about what’s going on. You may be surprised at the response.

Public relations is all about reputation management–your credibility is the coin of the business realm. We’re pretty hard on companies and brands that take a cavalier attitude about their credibility–because once you lose that, it’s all over. Or is it?

Admittedly, we have strongly implied that you can’t buy your way out of a PR disaster, but the oily BP sure makes us think twice:

Before BP could stem the oil gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, it unleashed $100 million in ad spending, largely on network TV, to stem the damage to its image. But it also started spending heavily where it had never spent much before: buying ads in Google’s search results.

How much did BP spend on search? In two months, BP went from spending very little on search advertising — about $57,000 a month — to becoming one of Google’s top advertisers, dropping nearly $3.6 million in the month of June alone, according to an internal Google document obtained by Advertising Age. That pushed BP into the upper echelon of search advertisers, in a league with Expedia, which spent at least $5.9 million in June, Amazon, which spent at least $5.8 million, and eBay, which spent at least $4.2 million.

This is a significant outlay, even for BP, which spent $94 million on advertising in 2009, and $78.7 million in the first six months of 2010 alone excluding search, according to Kantar Media. Search advertisers only pay when their ads convert or get a click, and in June the crisis was still at full-boil, driving clicks on BP&’s ads. But if BP kept spending at this rate, search would’ve become one of its bigger advertising line items by the end of the year, up there with network, cable or spot TV.

[...]

BP’s increase underscores how important Google has become for reputation management, and in the battle for public opinion. In the wake of the spill, Google was a natural first stop for people seeking information, and BP bought up dozens of keywords associated with the disaster such as “oil spill,” “leak,” “top kill” and “live feed” as it vied for clicks with news stories, images of oiled wildlife and plaintiff attorneys trolling for clients.

via What Big Brands Are Spending on Google – Advertising Age – Digital.

According to BP, ad expenditures during the active spill were $5 million per week.

BP’s ad strategy now follows the typical trajectory of crisis PR, he says. It didn’t start out that way. BP was slow to connect with consumers and gulf residents right after the spill. Tony Hayward’s numerous gaffes didn’t help the company’s image, which came across as inept and out of touch. There’s little question that his mismanagement of the company’s public image led to his ouster as CEO.

So how’s the advertising paying off in PR improvement? A recent AP poll says that “some 66 percent of those surveyed continue to disapprove of BP’s performance, down from a whopping 83 percent in June.” Though still dismal, it does look like the ad spending is helping. However, it’s also certainly due to the fact that time has passed and the oil spill isn’t leading the newscasts anymore. The public has turned to the latest Sarah Palin Facebook pronouncement, Paris Hilton’s cocaine possession arrest and even something important, like the president’s new rug.

Sure, we’ve seen the TV ads BP is using to rebuild its tattered, oil-stained image–that was as predictable as a blob of oil on the beach at Destin. But who would’ve thought they would have spent all that coin on Google search ads?

Clearly, the internet is now the 800 lb. gorilla of reputation management, and Google has some serious bananas.

Hat tip to Shelly Kramer for inspiring this post.

Think people don’t read something in to everything about the way you look and present yourself? Think again:

Those seeking clues as to what’s going on inside Procter & Gamble during these challenging economic times might do well to take a look at the firm’s just-released 2010 annual report to shareholders.

Right up front is a photo of Bob McDonald presiding over his first annual report as chairman and CEO of the Cincinnati-based consumer goods giant. It’s shot in profile, with McDonald wearing a conservative, dark, pin-striped suit, and looking off-camera.

That’s a big shift from the photos in recent years of A.G. Lafley, who had been chairman and CEO for eight years before his retirement in February. Lafley favored open-collared shirts and hadn’t appeared in a suit and tie since 2003.

The change in style is obvious. And glossy annual reports tend to be tightly controlled to convey precisely the messages and images that corporations want their shareholders, employees, and customers to receive. Few companies, if any, are more protective of their reputations than P&G.

P&G spokesman Paul Fox said people shouldn’t read anything into McDonald’s change of dress for the annual report photo.

“Tie or not, our purpose to touch and improve the lives of more consumers more completely in more parts of the world remains unchanged,” Fox said in an email.

Still, corporate annual reports are key tools for making strategic impressions, said LisaMarie Luccioni, a professor of communications at the University of Cincinnati and certified image professional. Whatever message McDonald’s photo conveys, it’s safe to assume it was meant to convey something, she said.

“I do think it is deliberate. When you’re talking about an annual report, you’re talking about the prime piece of nonverbal literature that represents not only the company but its vision, its leadership,” Luccioni said. “I am convinced that every picture, every word was very much scrutinized in an impression-management way.”

via Procter And Gambles Annual Shareholder Report Gives Insights Into Consumer Goods Giant Business – Companies & Execs – Portfolio.com.

Of course, that excerpt is a rather extreme example–P&G is a huge company with loads of cash riding on perception–but it should give you pause when you consider your presentation to clients, partners, employees–heck everybody.

This isn’t about changing who you are. Certainly, you gotta be you (See: Writing, Redhead or Kramer, Shelly or Godin, Seth ). This is about putting your best foot forward, and thinking of how you will be perceived and what effect that perception will have on your bottom line.

Be reasonable. If you make your living as a banker, you better look like a banker. Doesn’t mean you can’t have style or be a tad irreverent at times–just remember nobody (especially these days) wants anyone being irreverent about their money. You’re a cook with long hair? Wear a hairnet–please. Sell real estate? Show clients around in a clean car.

I don’t shave everyday. It’s a thing with me–I hate shaving and my wife says a little stubble is attractive (honest!). However, I can assure you if I’m pitching to a conservative prospective client, I shave and will likely wear a suit. Maybe someday when I’m making huge coin that will be different; but for now, I shave. (It almost goes without saying; but if I am acting as a spokesperson for a client, of course I shave and look my best.)

Just as you shouldn’t show up to casual day at the office in sweat pants and a tube top (guys and gals), don’t run afoul of your business norms if it’s going to scare away the customers. Be yourself–but be smart about it. The default position is to present your best, most polished self.

We do a lot of “talking” about public relations on this blog–but we also want to listen.

We’re looking for you small business owners, non-profit execs, corporate PR pros, politicians, consultants, authors and musicians (and really anyone else) to weigh in with your biggest public relations challenge. Do you feel like you’re always climbing a wall, pushing a boulder–yet getting nowhere?

In your public relations efforts, is there something holding you back or getting in your way?

Is it:

• Hiring the right PR pro?
• Finding budget for PR?
• Finding your message?
• Moving from tactical to strategic efforts?
• A bad image?
• No image?
• Rebranding?
• …or something else?

Please share your challenges in the comments section below. We may feature your challenge and some suggestions on how to address it in an upcoming post. You can also remain anonymous by emailing us with your challenge at team@alexgpr.com.

So let’s hear from you–the PR program you save could be your own!

Source: http://www.tvkc.co.uk/site/index.php?start=63

We just read an article with some great advice on hiring a PR firm. We recommend the entire article, but this section on fees is especially worth a read.

Phase in the fees.

Retainers for smaller agencies run $2,000 to $5,000 or so per month. But don’t begin on retainer. Set up a specific project with a price tag attached so you can evaluate results.

Paying for customized services is another option. For instance, hire a publicist to write press releases on an hourly basis for about $100 to $250. You can also contract with a PR pro to work in-house for you. Rates vary with experience, say, $50 to $200 per hour. Some PR companies, such as Pinnacle Worldwide, provide a network of international independent agencies, so you can contract for services in any country or city.

We totally agree with their stance on retainers. AlexanderG PR welcomes the opportunity to show what we can do on a single project or closed-ended time period before we “earn” a retained relationship.

And yes, the retainer fees mentioned in the article are industry standard. We get paid for our work like any other professional. Most reputable PR firms and consultants can command ever penny of that retainer because they offer a great ROI.

Project fees are also a good way to go, too.

Here are some warning signs that usually indicate you will not get what you pay for:

A firm promises “guaranteed results.” No one can ensure press coverage or other specific outcomes. (Editor’s Note: emphasis ours)

A firm does too much research. “There should be a balance between planning and doing,” says Dave Kowal, whose agency is based in Northboro, Mass.

There are proposals with no specifics. You should know exactly what’s planned.

You’re charged an unusually low retainer. This probably means you can’t expect much work.

We hasten to add, however, that an unusually low retainer is often accepted–and plenty of work is done–because many clients will not or cannot pay more. Not all firms that accept a low fee are dodgy; many do it in hopes of establishing a longterm relationship.

That’s tricky, though. Once a PR firm gets into a “lowball” situation with a client, they may never get paid what they’re really worth and end up losing money in the long run.

Be advised…you get what you pay for. If you pay a PR firm a non-professional wage, you’ll likely get non-professional results.

The Cover-Up was Worse Than the Crime

“When you’re in the mix of these really obtuse situations where nobody really knows the facts, in some sense the facts are less important than your posture toward the facts,” says Mr. Reeves, the former Merrill Lynch media relations executive.

“People are reasonable. They know companies make mistakes, and people will forgive an honest mistake. They will not forgive a dishonest cover-up.”

via P.R. Missteps Fueled Fiascos at BP, Toyota and Goldman – NYTimes.com.

We couldn’t agree more.

Source: http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com

The internet can be either a boon or boondoggle to companies when it comes to the monitoring of their online brand presence.

For companies that pay little attention to their online storefronts, the rewards are continual brand hijacking, abusive pay-per-click tactics and outright attacks on brands.

MarkMonitor, an enterprise brand protection firm, offers solutions and services to safeguard brands, reputation and revenue from online risks. In their white paper “Online Brand Protection: A Step-by-Step Guide to Creating a Proactive Strategy” MarkMonitor recommends a series of protective measures, including:

• Identifying all domain names in your portfolio
• Manage your portfolio proactively
• Monitor for potential abuse
• Respond to abuse

Great paper–in particular, we recommend you take a look at the section on monitoring for potential abuse. You can do this inside your company, or there are several online services that offer affordable methods to do this for you. No matter how you do it, the key is never-ending vigilance.

Creating an ideal domain portfolio is a good start to establishing and protecting your corporate brands online. However, it is just the beginning. While defensive registrations enable you to own and control the domain names that may be abused by third parties, it is simply impossible for any corporation to register every potentially harmful domain name. Therefore, the next critical step for defending your brands online is to establish a strategic monitoring program that constantly searches the internet for potential abuses, including:

• Cybersquatting
• Domain kiting/tasting
• Trademark infringement
• Traffic diversion schemes
• False associations with unrelated third parties
• Pay-per-click abuse
• Sponsored in abuse
• Logo/image abuse
• Offensive content
• Channel non-compliance with brand guidelines and/or pricing

Many small–and even larger–companies cannot afford to hire a person devoted to these critical tasks. This is what the bad guys count on. Again, a monitoring service is worth the price if it can save you the damage of brand equity loss, not to mention real money gone forever due to internet banditry. (They can also help you identify new customers–but that’s another post).

A comprehensive, proactive social media monitoring and interactive strategy is also a hedge against bad actors, as your customers will be in regular communication with you and often tell you when they spot a spoof site or a shady deal involving your brand.

Brand managers should assess the degree to which website traffic is diverted to sites that abuse its brand and the amount of lost advertising revenue that is diverted to fraudulent pay-per-click sites, You should look at quantitative and qualitative indicators, including:

• Degree of fewer “negative impressions” due to successfully shutting down web site which degrade your brand
• Improvement in website traffic due to successfully shutting down traffic diversion tactics (Cybersquatting, pat-per-click sites, paid search ads)
• Better quality response rate to online advertising due to successfully shutting down fraudulent pay-per-click sites
• Productivity gains and/or hours saved per week in detecting and responding to infringement by leveraging available technologies and solutions

From the public relations perspective, monitoring is critical in protecting your brand’s reputation and credibility. One of the services we provide at AlexanderG Public Relations includes online brand monitoring and image management. This helps us head off potentially bad PR by identifying and addressing problems before they become full-blown crises; it also helps our clients determine where best to apply their messaging and online resources–often increasing market share in the process.

Nasty stuff outlined in this post is happening to oblivious companies everyday. The message is simple: if you don’t know what’s going in your online storefront, it’s the same as someone setting up a fake store just around the corner from yours in real-life –selling low quality goods and ruining your good name.

Ignorance isn’t bliss. It’s expensive.

Credit: http://pharmamkting.blogspot.com

This week we’ve looked at some of the most wretched P.R. crises, spurred by a comprehensive article in the New York Times. Today, we look at the fight behind the scenes to minimize P.R. and legal damage:

In times of crisis, communications professionals and lawyers often pursue conflicting agendas. Communications strategists are inclined to mollify public anger with expressions of concern, while lawyers warn that contrition can be construed as admissions of guilt in potentially expensive lawsuits.

For BP, this tension burst into view in May, when executives went to Capitol Hill with officials from two of its contractors: Transocean, which owned the offshore rig that exploded, and Halliburton, which aided BP in drilling. Executives from the three companies each disowned culpability while pointing fingers at one another.

“What that screamed is the lawyers are in control,” says Mr. Reeves. “All it did was get everybody all the more peeved at them.”

It’s a tough call. Legal is trying to keep you out of court–or worse jail. P.R. is trying to save your credibility, and by extension your business. Based on my experience, I believe honesty is the best policy. Transparency is critical.

Of course, I also believe BP would have fired me on the spot, because I would’ve recommended we throw ourselves on the mercy of public opinion–ala Tylenol.

If there is no doubt mistakes were made–if you’re caught dead to rights–then your appeal to the Court of Public Opinion (not to be confused with The People’s Court, though a bailiff named Rusty is always cool) should go something like this:

Scenario: ABC Company has been accidentally dumping factory greywater into river tributaries that feed stock ponds. There’s no wiggle room–they’re busted on 60 Minutes.

Here’s the statement I would recommend:

“ABC Company admits and takes full responsibility for our mistake. We take our commitment to the environment very seriously. This event has not only been embarrassing but an inexcusable violation of the trust the public has bestowed upon us. Our usually reliable safeguards and policies were not followed and we are taking measures to discipline those who caused this failure. We will also work with the community to undertake reasonable measures to clean up the leaked water and make whole those damaged economically by this incident. It is my sincere hope that we can regain the trust of our community and strengthen that trust as we move forward. Thank you. My chief engineer and I will be happy to take questions about our next steps.”

I can hear some of you now: “Dude, that’s nuts! Never admit guilt!” True, you have to protect your company and its assets; this is a statement of last resort. However, plenty of people will disagree with our strategy of telling the truth even as a last resort.

To that we say this: if you’re caught by 60 Minutes, do you really want to be the guy sweating under the grueling geriatric grilling of Mike Wallace? You won’t win.

Mistakes owned-up to quickly are a matter of forgiveness. Drag your feet, dissemble or lie and it becomes a matter of corruption, criminality or mistrust. Ducking or covering up and apologizing only after you have nowhere else to hide–or under court order–will effectively destroy your reputation and cost you in money, energy, time and brand equity.

In another life I was Vice President of a $70 million healthcare management firm. We made some mistakes from time to time. As a rule, we told the truth and did our best to make it right (at least anytime I had any say in it). It wasn’t always profitable. I wasn’t always popular with the management team. I have no regrets about that policy.

I have no idea if there were intramural arguments between BP legal and P.R.–but if there were, it looks like legal won. Hmm. After being obstinate, disingenuous and a total PR failure, you have to wonder what BP’s management thinks in the dark midnights of their souls. Do they admit–if only to themselves–that they made a bad situation far worse?

Did the money they thought they were saving by reducing lawsuits outweigh the complete meltdown of their brand–thus hindering future profits? Or was the fact that their profits would far outweigh relative short-term damages the controlling factor?

Did they  stay up nights worrying about this? I doubt it.

Our continued look at recent P.R. crises made worse by stupidity turns today to BP. We’ve already written extensively about BP, so we’ll refer back to the recent New York Times article for the most important point–there’s only one thing you absolutely must protect in a crisis–or all is lost:

Putting aside the limitations of crisis management, those in the trade generally share a sense that the companies at the center of recent events committed grievous errors. At the top of the list is BP.

“It was one of the worst P.R. approaches that I’ve seen in my 56 years of business,” says Mr. Rubenstein. “They tried to be opaque. They had every excuse in the book. Right away they should have accepted responsibility and recognized what a disaster they faced. They basically thought they could spin their way out of catastrophe. It doesn’t work that way.”

[...]

“BP lost a lot of credibility when it turned out they weren’t being forthright about how much oil was spilling out,” says Lucio Guerrero, who, as former spokesman for Rod R. Blagojevich, the impeached governor of Illinois, has intimate knowledge of the art of trust management. “Once you lose credibility, that’s the kiss of death.”

Of course, CEO Tony Hayward spilled what little credibility the pitiful oil giant had left with his lack of sensitivity and epic foot-in-mouth disease:

On the highlight reel of BP’s missteps, strategists cite its effort to deflect blame for the spill by pinning responsibility on contractors. That made BP appear callous, as if it were focused on avoiding legal liability rather than doing right by those whose lives had been upended — the families of the 11 rig workers who died in the explosion, and communities that draw their livelihoods from the gulf. (BP declined to comment on such assertions.)

The company had to contend with a classic corporate quandary of balancing advice from counselors with starkly different considerations, according to people familiar with BP’s deliberations who requested anonymity because the advice was confidential.

That poor balancing act was also apparent in their use of two spokespersons at once. Never a good idea. Credibility score: zero.

But what about when the lawyers battle the P.R. pros behind the scenes in the fight for control of the situation? We’ll look at that tomorrow.

AlexanderG Public Relations founder and Principal Alex Greenwood is proud to emcee the Arthritis Foundation’s annual Art for Arthritis event on Thursday, September 23rd, at 6 p.m. at Studio Dan Meiners. Tickets are $50.

When Cassie Schmidt was diagnosed with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis at only twelve months old, her family had no idea that in spite of her diagnosis, Cassie would one day use art to serve as an inspiration for children struggling with the same disease. Now ten years old, Cassie has been a participant in Art for Arthritis for six years and spends the months leading up to each event excitedly discussing what her next masterpiece will be.

Her mother and Art for Arthritis partner, Amy, says that the event has been extremely validating for her daughter by allowing her the opportunity to fight back against her arthritis. Amy says, “Art for Arthritis has become the most important thing in Cassie’s life after her family and her faith.”

“I’m thrilled to be asked back to emcee this wonderful event,” said Greenwood, who has emceed the event twice before. “I live with arthritis and have several family members and friends who deal with its effects on a daily basis. I’m happy to help out in any way I can, and challenge the Kansas City business community to support these great kids.”

Most people don’t think about children having arthritis but more than 3,000 children in the Kansas City and Western Missouri area have some form of this painful disease. Our Art for Arthritis event teams 17 local children affected by juvenile arthritis with area artists to spend a summer together creating unique pieces of artwork. The artwork is auctioned off at the end of the summer our gala fundraising event in order to raise money for nationwide arthritis research, as well as local programs and services.

This event, however, is much more than a fundraiser. Art for Arthritis empowers participants by introducing them to children with similar circumstances who can work together to fight against arthritis by raising awareness about their disease and supporting an agency that advocates on their behalf. It also exposes children to alternative forms of expression through granting them access into the local Kansas City arts community.

A Preview Party showcasing the children’s work will take place on September 16th, 2010 at One Park Place from 6 to 10 p.m., in order to generate excitement around the event and to allow the children and artists spend time together with friends of the Foundation.

Arthritis is the leading cause of disability in the United States. The Arthritis Foundation is the only national not-for-profit organization that supports the more than 100 types of arthritis and related conditions. In its 61st year, the Arthritis Foundation has funded more than $380 million in research grants, and provides public health education, policy and legislation and evidence-based programs to improve the quality of life for those with arthritis.

To learn more about Art for Arthritis, to donate to the Arthritis Foundation or to register for this year’s event, please visit http://artkc.kintera.org or contact Annie Noonen at anoonen@arthritis.org.