badge

Pages

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Forgiveness: My compulsory lesson from Mandela’s life

While reading an article by Nobel laureate Archbishop Despond Tutu titled ‘Prison became a crucible’ paying his tribute to Nelson Mandela, I couldn’t help but think of a lesson in leadership which no management institute has ever taught nor can ever teach. The lesson of unconditional forgiveness to one’s detractors.

I see this as a common trait in all the people who I regard as leaders and idols– Mahatma Gandhi, Jesus Christ and Swami Vivekananda.

All great nations, communities, societies have been built through reconciliation. The path of reconciliation begins with and must have Forgiveness at every step. And with a nation as diverse as my own, India, the fact that it continues to stand as a single nation since independence could not have been possible without a spirit of forgiveness.

Some people point out to the Partition of India in 1947 to say that we did have our black spot but my answer to them is that had it not been for the spirit of forgiveness (inculcated painstakingly by the Mahatma), pre-independence India would have divided into, not two, but 20 nation states post 1947.


So from the life of Madiba, I take back this crucial and compulsory lesson in life. Time will tell how much I’m able to live up to it. 

Thursday, November 28, 2013

In Search of the Formula for Communications Measurement

I utter the word measurement with a degree of trepidation. The word can mean many different things depending on who we talk to. To many it’s a perfect way to put a Communications/ PR person in the dock since they argue that the results of communications are not directly measurable in terms of business results. And that which can’t be measured stays at the periphery.

What set me thinking on this topic was when a senior marketing executive at a forum commented that Communication practitioners seem to be scared of being measured on ROI. What does he mean by that, I said to myself. And so began the quest to find the formula for communications measurement.

Unfortunately, many communications practitioners have heard similar criticism from clients/ stakeholders so often that they’ve begun to dislike the word ROI. But is it really such a dreaded thing? Can communications be measured in business terms? And what’s the most acceptable methodology?

Before getting into the method, let’s understand the context. Till any function is measured with regard to business impact, it is a tendency to look at it as a cost centre which needs to be closely scrutinized, and more so in times of margin pressure. An apt example is that of the HR function. Isn’t it ironic that in PR and advertising firms where talent is the primary resource, HR teams have an average size of less than 2% of the total headcount. In fact, most PR firms with 50-100 people have a one-member HR Team with the KPI defined primarily as recruitment and back-filling. One would think the role of HR would be more expansive in a people-centric business such as PR and so HR departments would be better staffed. But that has rarely been the case despite the healthy growth seen by the PR industry during the last decade.

PR and communications departments face a similar situation in the corporate structure where sales teams tend to be more powerful. It is a fact that most CEOs have a sales background. So, it becomes even more crucial for the communications team to show measureable business results if it wants to have a seat at the business decision making table.        

So, what's the ROI of Corporate Communications

Even if we acknowledge that the results of communications efforts at reputation management cannot be directly correlated to quarterly sales targets and bottomlines, no-one can and should deny or belittle the long-term impact of this effort on a company’s overall performance. Companies that have measured corporate communications through tactical short-term metrics have seen their brand values erode in the longer term. The best examples are many Japanese brands that have built their communications campaigns primarily focusing on product visibility in the short-term - a very transactional approach to communications. While immediate visibility for product may be needed during market entry, it cannot remain the sole driver of communications efforts. With the onslaught of the more nimble Korean brands, those Japanese brands are today fast losing the audience mindshare.

As per the Interbrand best global brands, only two Japanese brands are in the current top 20 namely Toyota and Honda. Most brands that have endured over time are American ones because they understood the value of long-term reputation building early on. Reputation is a brand’s most powerful defense to crises and competitor onslaught. So by that analogy, reputation management is as important to a brand as its defense forces are to a nation. Can a nation ask its defense forces for a Return on Investment?     

Measuring Marketing Communications

Marketing communications, which is primarily aimed at supporting marketing efforts, can be measured by understanding the impact of communications on specific marketing campaigns that directly impact sales of a product or service offering. One such method uses regression analysis which is a statistical process for estimating the relationship amongst variables. The measurability increases significantly in the case of social media promotions particularly in measuring efficacy of message delivery on a real-time basis.

Many companies particularly those in the consumer space use audience audits as a means for measuring the success of communications and marketing campaigns. The logic being that if the audience does not associate the brand with the key messages or ‘terms’ that the brand aims to stand for, it defeats the purpose of the communications and marketing effort. This has its clear merits. 

The other methodology includes a weighted average of multiple factors such as media circulation/viewership of coverage, number of social media mentions/ comments, tonality, share of voice and key messages/terms captured to arrive at a score. These have their merits too just that it doesn't necessarily show how the audience reacted to the messages.

At the end of the day, its all about the target audience and whether they absorbed the message which the brands tried very hard to deliver.

So is there a formula?

For those readers who believe the argument is endless, here’s the simplest answer for any communications measurement to be successfully applied.

The key lies in goal setting. The metrics must be agreed during the stage at which goals are being set. Each goal must have a clearly stated and agreed success criterion. What’s also important is to agree on the assumptions being made, the limiting factors and where one stands on the goal at the beginning of the period. If the probability of occurrence of any significant limiting factor is high, it is imperative to have a Plan B. One may argue that when a client hires a strategy advisory firm such as McKinsey, does a strategy advice always fit into an ROI metrics? Not necessarily. The thing that the strategy consultants get right is the assessment of the client’s market dynamics at play, the risk factors and their impact which is used to arrive at a highly measurable plan of action. And they are paid basis hours spent not on ROI. So, we needn't get caught up in the ROI model.

The disconnect actually lies at this juncture since many in-house communications teams have not taken the pains to discuss and agree on the success metrics and assess limiting factors with the senior management. Everyone loves ambiguity since it gives them the space to present results in their favour. Similar is the case with PR firms. And when the desired results are not achieved, the blame game begins.

The greatest enemy of measurement is improper goal setting. Most communicators tend to believe that they know the goals so why spend so much time in goal setting. The broad brush approach is what sets them up for failure. 

So folks, that’s as close as I could get. Love to hear your thoughts. As I said, the search is on for that ever elusive formula…And when we get it, we wouldn’t be too far from communications’ very own God Particle!

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Who wants to be a thought leader?

In over a decade as a communications professional, I can’t remember having dealt with an organization that does not list thought leadership as one of its communications objectives, if not the primary one. It makes me wonder that if every company becomes a thought leader, then we would soon be entering the most ‘divine’ phase in corporate history. However, the state of the global economy and the unenviable balance sheets of many corporates, paints a rather grim picture, quite the opposite of what we would expect from a world filled with self-proclaimed thought leaders.

In a study by Forbes magazine conducted in 2010 of 1,452 diverse professionals with a variety of industries ranging from investment advisors to attorneys and from accountants to life coaches and security specialists, 78% of them wanted to be thought leaders. However, only about 5% say they achieved this goal. Similar results have been seen time and again.

In order to understand this phenomenon, let’s start by trying to define the phrase. Forbes, in an article titled, ‘What is a Thought Leader?’ gave the following definition from a business perspective -

A thought leader is an individual or firm that prospects, clients, referral sources, intermediaries and even competitors recognize as one of the foremost authorities in selected areas of specialization, resulting in its being the go-to individual or organization for said expertise.

So, the moot point is that an individual, firm or organization being a thought leader is determined by how others (its clients, prospects, employees etc.) perceive it based on its expertise and/or benefits to the audience. One can become a business leader by showcasing better financial results but the approach does not apply to thought leadership.

Many companies look at thought leadership as the icing on the cake. Failure to understand this aspect is the crux of the problem owing to which most organizations would never be perceived as thought leaders no matter how much they spend on the so-called ‘thought leadership campaigns’.

What amazes me is the misconception that exists among some corporate managers that public relations/ communications is the silver bullet to the coveted thought leader status. PR practitioners can help articulate and provide counsel on an existing opinion of the client and communicate it to the desired stakeholders. To think that the communications team/consultant can take sole charge of transforming the company’s image to that of a thought leader is the biggest bluff that can ever be played. Any company or its leader that lacks substance, may see some short-term accolades owing to the efforts of his public relations team but is destined for failure. And any PR practitioner who claims to deliver it is trying to mislead a rather uninformed business leader.       
  
So does it mean that communications has no role?

The point being made is that over-dependence on communications to deliver on thought leadership is putting the cart before the horse. A communications counsel can surely help a business leader in articulating his/ her thoughts and providing sufficient proof points, provided a strong and relevant opinion exists just as a legal counsel would help a client build strong evidence only and only if the case has merit. It is not mandatory to hire a legal counsel to fight one’s case (a plaintiff is free to fight his/her own case in court) and the same applies to using the services of a communications counsel. That said, the value of the legal counsel or of communications counsel can be significant if the case or content has substance.  



Among individuals, there is an ever blossoming group of wannabe thought leaders who think that by simply regurgitating the same points to suit various contexts, they would stay on top of every discussion. Unfortunately, for them, most people see through these attempts. At a recent so-called thought leaders conference, barring some speakers, most were using the platform to wax eloquent about their individual achievements in the garb of social service. It’s a tad disturbing to see people doing good for the sake of looking good. So, is this one of the milestones in the journey to thought leadership? One’s credibility definitely plays a role but it doesn’t need to be reinforced at every possible opportunity. It may be a foundation but what matters is the structure built on top of it.     


These days, every time I attend an industry event where a speaker utters the blessed words, a thought rushes through my mind. How about exploring a TV show titled ‘Who wants to be a thought leader’ on the lines of ‘Who wants to be a millionaire’. With so many aspirants around, I’ll surely have no dearth of sponsors and participants. The only glitch may be getting the viewers. Hey, what the heck, let me leave that to YouTube. After all, with so many high priests of thought around, need I do all the thinking!

Thursday, September 12, 2013

The changing relationship between public relations and marketing

I’m often questioned by my peers in marketing on whether public relations is essentially a function or a branch of marketing. Many marketers would like to believe so, in fact while they may not say it explicitly but PR is viewed by some as the poorer cousin of marketing. In contrast, most PR practitioners consider the profession to be a management function whereby PR rolls up to the CEO/ MD or to the Head of Corporate Affairs. This line of thinking, in essence, suggests that PR runs as a parallel stream to marketing, connected yet independent. The irony is that many organizations agree to the latter argument in letter but not in spirit. The resultant ambiguity gives rise to a tussle on ownership of brand campaigns, communication platforms (particularly social media) and sharing of resources between marketing and PR teams within an organization.    

The debate needs to be seen in a broader context. At a fundamental level, every organization needs to be clear about the core purpose that PR is expected to serve. Is the role of PR merely to support marketing campaigns i.e. marketing communications? Or is PR aimed at corporate brand building and issues management? While the significance of PR may vary depending on where the organization stands in its lifecycle and the external issues it faces, it is primarily up to the CEO/MD to define the purpose of PR. The reporting structure is secondary. In absence of a clear purpose, PR teams usually grapple with hierarchy and ownership issues.


If the role of PR is marketing communications then it is fair for the PR team to work very closely with marketing and may even report to the Head of Marketing. But if PR is expected to play a more strategic role, then it needs an independent reporting structure. In line with this thought, several leading global companies have a separate reporting structure for PR with the Head of corporate communications having a seat on the company’s senior leadership team alongside the Head of Marketing.

However, there is another line of thought that believes that the PR team must be flexible enough to manage both corporate and marketing communications depending on where the need arises. In such cases, in-country PR teams have a dotted line reporting to in-country marketing. Such a reporting structure requires the PR team to support the priorities of corporate communications/ corporate affairs along with those of in-country marketing, both of which can be very different. So, PR teams need to invest in understanding the marketing approach, yet deliver on corporate messaging in order to be able to maintain the fine balance. 

With the conventional ROI-driven approach to marketing, PR is essentially measured by the number of impressions, placement, tonality and readership, in essence, breadth of coverage. The depth aspect, based on corporate messaging, third-party endorsement and advocacy, tends to become secondary. Many marketers take a cookie cutter approach that primarily looks at output (essentially coverage) as opposed to outcome (which could be influencer relationships). This is owing to the fact that conventional marketing tends to veer towards a more transactional and easily measurable approach to communications.

On the other hand, the PR approach is more focused on driving conversations with or without a transactional engagement with audiences. Owing to this difference of approach, the yardstick used by conventional marketing often fails to measure the results of PR in its entirety. While the ROI approach for PR may not be completely out of place since PR does deliver a far better ROI than advertising, events etc. but aspects such as message delivery and advocacy must be key components of any PR measurement tool. In essence, for marketing and PR to share a healthy relationship, it is essential that both streams graduate to a more outcome-based measurement approach without subjecting one another to their specific output metrics. Neither of these streams can act as a substitute for the other.



Advertising fell into the trap of being categorized as a demand generation activity. PR must be careful not to be led onto the same path.   

With a growing understanding of PR’s deeper role in corporate brand building, its stature has gradually risen in the corporate hierarchy. That said, PR will have to earn its position and respect within the corporate set-up by aligning itself to strategic management goals. This is the key to the PR profession gaining its rightful place as a management function.

Friday, August 23, 2013

Poor internal communications is the bane of the P.R. profession


At a public relations conference, a senior professor commented that public relations is yet to be seen as a management function. Some key requirements from a management function are multi-disciplinary expertise, leadership capabilities, collaboration with other functions and the ability to make a measurable impact on various organizational goals.  Advertising professionals failed to show these capabilities and therefore, could not gain a seat within the management team of clients. 

On the other hand, one can clearly see some serious rethink on the role of public relations in the overall communication matrix within organizations. As public relations evolves into a multi-disciplinary profession that has direct engagement with multiple stakeholders be it consumers or with the company boards, there has been a perception shift where in-house public relations professionals are being recognized for making an impact on business as well as exhibiting leadership abilities. As a result, increasingly, companies are delinking in-house P.R. teams from marketing teams and assigning clear goals and targets that are tied to organizational goals. This signifies that the discipline is required to collaborate well with other functions to deliver the desired results.

In-house P.R. teams rely heavily on P.R. agency teams to deliver results. This in-turn broadens the role of P.R. agency teams. They are expected to advise clients on every possible means and channel of communication, be it internal or external. So understandably, P.R. agency professionals are assumed to have the requisite system and structure in place that helps integrate their own teams and align them to client’s structure and goals. Surprisingly, that’s where many P.R. teams exhibit glaring gaps. 

I have seen many P.R. agency teams failing to deliver owing to ineffective internal collaboration within the team especially when team members are spread across various locations, work on different client campaigns and/or belong to various practice areas (digital, public affairs). The fact is that P.R. agency teams are still coming to terms with a matrix structure of client servicing. While I don’t mean to say that in-house corporate communications teams have mastered the art of collaboration, I would like to keep that aspect aside since it is highly dependent on the size and nature of business of the client organization. P.R. agencies tend to have similar structures.

So let’s try to understand some concerns and misconceptions that hinder effective collaboration within P.R. teams.

  • I can’t perform in a matrix structure. Yes, the statement sounds familiar. When each horse is out to prove that he’s better than the rest of his fellows pulling the same cart, it is a fiasco in the making. Of course individual performance matters and there can be ample scope to show it even in a matrix structure, but if one believes that by working in isolation one can outshine the rest, the person is grossly mistaken. A team member is better off working in sync than trying to stick one’s neck out.      
  • If I’m the best individual performer, I’m most eligible to lead the team. Not necessarily. Leadership is not about doing the best work yourself, but about helping others (which includes peers, subordinates and even seniors) to put in their best and achieve a common goal. I have come across people at various levels who believe that by not sharing their knowledge and skills with others, they maintain their prominence in the team. What they fail to realize is that most team members can see this shortsighted behavior and tend to resent it. Such persons end up losing the team’s trust and even if they do eventually manage to become team leads, they achieve very little. After all, how much can a team lead accomplish if he/she isn’t trusted by fellow team members?
  • My opinion isn’t sought prior to important decisions. Addressing this concern of team members, in no uncertain terms, is the job of the team lead/s. They must ensure that important decisions are taken through consensus. The practice of taking key decisions in isolation can play havoc with team morale. In addition, the consensus-building process helps neutralize vested interests in the team who believe they have the authority to take a decision owing to their seniority or longevity in the team. This is, by far, the biggest test for the team lead.
  • Why should I be sharing most of the information when others don’t? Well, if a person is more resourceful and the team looks up to him/her for information, isn’t that a strength that can work in the person's favour? No-one stands to lose by sharing more.
  • I’ve shared knowledge but never got enough credit. That’s the pet peeve for most. From experience, I can say that credit is one of those things which the more one gives away, the more one gets. While it is definitely the role of the team lead/s to try to ensure that due credit (and I use the word ‘due’ since the degree is highly subjective) is passed on to each member of the team, the best results are achieved when every team member feels the need to acknowledge each other’s contribution. The more one tries to keep credit to oneself, the lesser credit he/she gets from the rest of the team.     
  • The client can’t see who’s doing what internally so how does it matter. You bet the client can. Teamwork and team chemistry are evident during client meetings and even on calls. In fact, I’ve had clients who would discuss individual strengths and weaknesses of team members with me and would oppose important work being given to a team member who they believed did not share a good rapport with others. Nothing could be more telling of a P.R. team’s inadequate internal communication than when various campaign teams sitting at a client meeting are clueless about the other campaign’s key initiatives and stare at each other when asked by a client how one campaign can leverage the initiatives of the other. While it reflects poorly on the team members, and particularly on the team lead, above all it damages the credibility of the firm.



Time and again, there have been several instances to prove that teams which collaborate effectively deliver far better results and exhibit a greater degree of confidence and bonding. Even situations of immense work pressure and uncertainties can be managed. On the other hand, teams that share little with each other in a misplaced notion of guarding their turf, deliver far below their potential. The result is often, frustration and attrition.  Putting in place a matrix reporting structure or providing the teams with tools to collaborate does not guarantee that they would do so. The crux is demonstrating the intent to collaborate which needs to percolate from the top, down to each and every layer of the team.  If P.R. practitioners want the profession to be viewed as a management function, they must behave in a manner that is commensurate to management practices such as effective internal collaboration.

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Why Public Relations must reinvent itself, or else R.I.P.

Many of us recall instances of repeated calls by insurance agents out to hard-sell a newly launched insurance policy, claiming to make our families ‘even more’ proud of us after we depart for heaven. The intense cajoling makes it seem as though the insurance policy is an eligibility criterion for entry to the heavenly abode. The divine discussion finally falls to the earth with a single question – what’s the lowest possible premium? Insurance is clearly the least valued investment option, rather, a necessary evil. Many Public Relations practitioners like to position P.R. as insurance against risks to corporate reputation from external factors. While that analogy may have some solid reasons, it is not surprising that the P.R. business in many parts of the world, stands commoditised as is the case with insurance.

Intense competition has meant that P.R. billings in hyper-competitive markets such as India are at their lowest. Faced with this scenario, it is only plausible to ask whether this low billing model is sustainable. Low billings would mean that growth in employee remuneration in the P.R. business would fall behind other key service industries. Moreover, the investments in training and development would continue to languish. In such a scenario, how can the business of Public Relations expect to attract or retain top talent? And without good talent, how will P.R. ever deliver results that will help it take centrestage in the communications strategy of clients?
P.R. is definitely not the first services business to be facing this situation. So, what is the solution? 
I certainly do not claim to have an answer but see no harm in trying to take a leaf out of the book of the insurance industry. Insurance now comes bundled with most financial instruments which seem to be far more amenable than standalone insurance. Perhaps it’s time P.R. is integrated with like-minded offerings – in other words its time to look at ‘Public Relations Plus’.

Till a few years ago the additional offering was primarily Public Affairs. However, that didn’t solve the problem of measurement. The new service offering, with a promise, is digital. As standalone, digital is heading for a similar cycle of commoditisation. But as part of P.R. Plus, digital gives P.R. teams the power to customize the message for each audience and deliver it directly with real-time measurement of audience receptivity. In culturally diverse countries such as India and the United States where marketers grapple with audience segmentation, the situation is set to get more complex with the growing penetration of the digital media. This complexity, in essence, has given P.R. its biggest opportunity.
If P.R. teams (comprising the PR firm and the in-house PR department) work in complete sync with a single-minded focus of showing the value of P.R. Plus to the C-suite in the backdrop of the increasingly complex external communications environment, there is a strong case for greater budgets being allocated and therefore better billings.
And it is this very message of P.R. Plus setting new benchmarks in communication that must be delivered to marketing and communications students. If setting new standards in communications is a student’s impression of success, then P.R. should be the career of choice. On the other hand, if PR teams continue to undercut each other and as a result fail to focus on demonstrating the strategic value of integrated campaigns, the community will do a great disservice to the P.R. discipline. Top talent will look elsewhere and the PR community will have only itself to blame.
On the digital front, while the debate continues to rage between marketers and P.R. teams as to who owns digital, the more plausible approach comes with understanding the purpose of the digital campaign for the company. Where digital is aimed at driving conversation with the audience, in other words the engagement is more social, it is up the alley of the P.R. team and where it is advertising-led or aimed at lead generation, marketers can take ownership with P.R. playing the supporting role. As companies gain clarity on the role of digital in their communication matrix, the differences are expected to be ironed out in due course.
We must remember that P.R. professionals would have to earn their place at the high table of strategy. The other option is to be prepared to get sidelined. We don't have much of a choice, do we?

This is an adaptation of an earlier post by me titled ‘Its time for public relations plus

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Job hopping: Why crash a promising P.R. career even before it takes off

In the past few weeks, I’ve met many young P.R. professionals who have made two or more job switches in the early years of their career. When I asked them about it, the usual answer is in search of a better opportunity. So, my obvious next question is what they want to achieve from this opportunity and from the career. And that’s where the hollowness of the decision begins to show.

The real problem is that most of them don’t know what they want to achieve in their careers. So money and designation become the obvious baits to lure them into a new job. The new employer, in most cases, has already guessed this weakness and couldn’t care less about their growth. They are thrown into the sea – if they learn to swim, they move ahead else they are left to drown.  As a result, the persons find themselves in the same old state a few months down the line in the new job – frustrated, stressed out and vindictive.  In the end, the once promising practitioner feels disillusioned barely 2-3 years into the profession.
The ways to avoid such an early setback to one’s career are to ask the following questions before deciding to switch:
·         Will I learn any new skills or will I just be doing the same things but for a new set of clients/ stakeholders? The plausible reason to switch a job in the first two years of one’s career is if a significant learning opportunity awaits you at the other end. A candidate with one year’s experience once told me during the interview that she didn’t really have a reason to move and was just exploring any new opportunities with my firm. My response was that if she wasn’t clear about what she wanted to learn in her new role, I saw no reason to hire her. Be very clear about why you need to switch your job. Learning should be the foremost reason.


·         Could there be a problem with my attitude? At college, I asked my professors what they sought in candidates during the entrance interview. The unambiguous response was attitude. Skills can be taught, attitude comes from within. For instance, if one is not able to get along with most teammates in the earlier firm and that is the reason for a change, there is a very high probability of the scenario being repeated in the new firm. It’s better to introspect than to be shown the mirror and thereafter, the door. In such a closely knit industry as public relations, it’s almost impossible to hide one’s behavioural attributes. Many of us have been through situations where a new employee’s attitude is known to teammates even before the person joins the firm. Always keep in mind, wherever you may go, your reputation is likely to precede you.    


·         Am I prepared to start from scratch? In most firms, persons with less than three years of work experience are expected to prove their competence at press office reporting before being assigned client-facing work. I remember having done press office work in addition to other responsibilities even at a manager level. If you switched jobs thinking you’ll be free from reporting tasks, prepare for a rude shock (no matter what you have been promised during the job interview).

·         Am I ready for the role that I’m getting into? This is primarily for those who are moving into corporates at a very early stage in their careers. Corporate culture can be ruthless. So, unlike P.R. firms where seniors are ready to mentor/train employees, in corporates the difference in experience between the senior and subordinate is usually so large (7- 10 years or more) and the corporate communications team is so small, that the senior hardly has the time to spend on bringing someone upto speed. Also, PR & Communications is a support function in a corporate so they would not be too keen to invest in training the PR team. So the subordinate either uses his/her experience gathered at a P.R. firm or learns the tricks on his/her own. If neither of these work, a pink slip is on its way, particularly if the company is not doing well.          


The apt testament is to analyze the career path of most successful P.R. and corporate communications professionals wherein it becomes clear that staying power is a common attribute. For most senior-level positions particularly in corporates, a job hopper is likely to lose out to candidates whose career graph shows stability. So, short-sightedness may seem to be working in the short-term but it is bound to wreck long-term career prospects for any aspiring public relations and communications professional.       

The blogpost was also published on thepromisefoundation blog

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Bitter truth for the youth – women and children’s safety is impossible in a society that eulogizes aggression!

Having lived in Delhi for over a decade, I have grown to love the city’s heritage, diversity and quality of talent. If there is one aspect that bogs me about this city, it is the fact that despite having one of the highest levels of per capita literacy and per capita income in India, Delhi remains among the most unsafe places for women not just in India but in any metro city in the world. This aspect coupled with the high incidence of road rage and child abuse, signifies something much deeper. Has aggression become a way of life in Delhi?
While it is great that the forest cover in our city has increased to almost 20% of the city’s land in the last decade (making the natural environment better), the irony seems to be that the city’s culture is turning into a jungle, quite literally. The unsaid rule clearly is that if one is physically stronger, the others must be subservient to his will. I often find the so-called elite and educated youth, who travel in big fancy cars and bikes, flouting traffic rules and if they are ever to be questioned, a brawl is almost certain.
I see children being employed in almost every mom and pop shop in Delhi and as domestic help in homes. They are denied education in the name of giving them a livelihood. It is these children that face abuse and violence. Yet I see very little conversation on these atrocities till extreme incidents occur.

Familiar sight in shops and homes?



How can women and children ever be safe in a society where aggression is a way of life? Holding the police and politicians accountable is the easier option but cannot be the panacea. There has to be change of mindset and behaviour. Aggression, whether at home or on the roads, must be denounced in every possible way. The change has to start with each one of us.
Are we ready to obey traffic rules and not to engage in any form of road rage either individually or as a group? Are we prepared to boycott any shop that employs children and oppose employing any child as domestic help? Are Delhi’s young ‘Daredevils’ ready to stand up for a woman when she objects to being stared at/abused on the road or while using public transport?
While it is heartening to see the youth pour on the streets to protest, that alone will not solve the endemic problem of a growing culture of aggression in Delhi.
For those of us who still do not feel the sense of responsibility and pain at the state of things, the most apt comment would be (quoting President Obama’s words) ‘Shame on us’.


For those of you who are wondering what this post has to do with public relations, I’d like to clarify that P.R. practitioners are as closely aligned to what happens in society as their counterparts in journalism. Anything that impacts society is as and more relevant for P.R. professionals. I’ve written about similar social issues in the past and one of them was titled Modern public relations owes its success to women leadership.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Is the creativity gap in P.R. largely a systemic problem?


While necessity is widely accepted as the mother of invention, the father remains disputed. Many believe it is creativity and I tend to agree since in public relations, creativity matters more than ever before. For a P.R. practitioner, the appropriate definition of creativity is in the words of former Harvard Business School professor and movie producer, John Kao, “The crucial variable in turning knowledge into value is creativity.”
 
As per a recent global study on Creativity in PR by Holmes Report and NowGoCreate, in partnership with Ketchum, 61% of all P.R. practitioners and 66% of in-house corporate communications executives agreed to the fact that the P.R. industry lacked big ideas.  It is quite a paradox that a discipline that has storytelling at its core, lacks creativity. After all, stories have fired human imagination from time immemorial. What may be fueling that argument is the fact that over the years creativity has been allowed to fall behind overriding issues such as budget constraint, overservicing, talent acquisition and lack of measurement of results. My experience has led me to believe that the problem lies elsewhere – in fact it has now become systemic.
Global Study on Creativity in PR by The Holmes Report

In most P.R. firms, a client servicing team is expected to do media relations, account management, content creation, client reporting and in some cases, media/digital monitoring, and all this for multiple accounts/clients. While the tasks are divided between different levels and, in an ideal situation, should be undertaken seamlessly, many of us in the business know how often team members across levels are drawn into the day-to-day tasks owing to multiple reasons –attrition, performance issues, client escalations and erratic client asks. Having gone through the drill for a good part of my career, I’m not surprised that creativity has fallen off the priority list for most client servicing teams. When the choice is between keeping the ship afloat and discovering new lands, the preference is a no-brainer.

In-house corporate communication teams have their fair share of issues. Many of them have to work with such a limited internal remit that they hardly have any clout to push creative ideas through the senior management team. Consequently, they are unable to secure the budgets to execute these ideas. In most cases, the ‘big ideas’ proposed during a pitch preparation are left to rot as the in-house team gets busy in pushing the agency to meet the endless expectations of internal stakeholders through press meetings and resultant clips.

That said, a growing number of P.R. consultancies genuinely value creativity and there are clients who are prepared to fund the idea provided the outcome has a clear impact on the client's business objectives.      

The point therefore is that if the problem is systemic, it is important for P.R. firms to keep client limitations aside, introspect and take the first steps. Change is far easier on the agency side than within the corporate environment.

Creativity must become the norm and the lack of creativity, the exception. Creativity is not like some chocolate chips sprinkled on a cake. Neither is it a switch that can be put on just before a pitch or plan and switched off later. The firm should create an aspiration of creativity built on the bedrock of knowledge. The very ethos of the organization must reflect creative thinking– from the design of the office space to everything that defines the work environment.


Every way must be explored to stimulate out-of-box thinking whether through information sharing, greater collaboration across teams and offices, giving new experiences and contacting people from other disciplines. A creative idea can come from anywhere – not just in doing client tasks. A regulated and siloed environment is among the biggest impediments to creativity. 

Advertising agencies went through a similar learning curve. The model adopted was that of having a central creative team that drives ideation for various client servicing teams. But this does not mean that client servicing teams wash their hands off ideation since they understand the client’s requirements, communication strategy and constraints better than anyone else. In fact, the job of risk-testing the idea is primarily that of the servicing team.

What better testament to the success of this model than the fact that most advertising agencies are personified by their creative heads. Perhaps P.R. agencies need to try out this tested model. There is already a move in this direction as P.R. firms appoint Chief Creative Officers with the purpose of forming a core creative team.

But again, this is no silver bullet. If firms do not motivate all employees, be it in client servicing or creative team, to take risk and be bold in their ideas, the purpose would be defeated.

To take advantage of this new structure, P.R. consultants need to redefine their remit beyond churning out media stories or adding fans to a brand’s Facebook page. If they want to challenge the perceived strength of advertising agencies in creativity, they need to lead integrated campaigns with the idea at the heart of the campaign.

As traditional P.R. and digital communications become increasingly commoditized, creativity is taking centrestage. It’s for the agencies to decide if they are ready to change – by weeding out the old complacent model to one that facilitates and incentivizes creativity at every level and at every step. P.R practitioners need to ask themselves - How long will the industry live in status quo? How long will they work within a limited remit defined by others? How long will they be scared to stick their necks out for a big idea owing to the fear of failure?

In an interesting case, my team once lost a pitch because the client felt that we were being too bold. The in-house executive said that while he loved the thinking, he would never be able to get a buy-in for these ideas from his management. My team did not have an iota of regret for what we presented.

When the subject is creativity, who can be more inspiring than Steve Jobs. In Jobs’ words – “Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of other's opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”

Sunday, January 20, 2013

For the love of public relations…

When I started my career in 2003, I was the only one in my batch of 20 students to opt for public relations (P.R.). In fact, my curiosity of P.R. dates back to school days when I watched a comic TV show cracking jokes on PR practitioners in one of its episodes. By the time I graduated, the curiosity turned into an infatuation. While all my classmates were making their career choices in areas such as event management or journalism (options made easy by the fact that these streams were far better defined), I had no doubt that my fate was in P.R. Amused at my conviction, a few classmates joked whether I was born to be a P.R. professional.  A decade later, I can surely say that P.R. is not just my profession, it’s my passion.   
Over the years, I have been talking to many new joiners in the P.R. community on their aspirations. It’s heartening to see quality talent opting for a career in P.R. But what I see missing is focus and direction. When I ask them what they wish to achieve from the discipline, they are either unclear or say that they would want to move to the corporate side in corporate communications departments. If the same question was put to a budding advertising professional, there are high chances that the answer would be to design and execute creative campaigns that can set benchmarks in the ad industry. I’m amazed that very few P.R. practitioners ever talk about creating industry leading campaigns that set the benchmark in communications. That has made me wonder if most of us understand the power of public relations beyond a front page story in top business, mainline dailies or magazines or the coveted 60 second slot on television.

From 123RF

We live in a world where messaging is king, irrespective of the medium, be it online or offline. With so much clutter and competition, it is becoming increasingly difficult to convey the desired messaging to target audiences. Who can understand, craft and deliver messaging more effectively than P.R. professionals?

Today P.R. is being asked to prove its worth for every penny spent. With communications budgets facing intense scrutiny, I see my team being pitted against those in ad agencies, digital agencies and others in the fight for marketing dollars and for ownership of integrated campaigns. I know we can win as long as my team controls the message and gives the most holistic and cost-effective idea. I disagree with those who say that clients don’t listen. Let your ideas speak for you.
Our business needs people who are intensely passionate about what we do and can demonstrate the deep knowledge and business acumen required to take on detractors. We cannot survive by playing on the defensive. Without passion and drive to think different, we will be relegated to a corner in the communications business.
The purpose of my blog is to see if I can convey and transfer this passion to promising young P.R. professionals and students. This week also marks the passing away of one of the pioneers of public relations, Daniel J. Edelman, whose life inspires many of us. While reading a book titled ‘Edelman and the Rise of Public Relations’, I was quite intrigued by his vision and passion for the profession dating as far back as 1950s.  
I have no doubt that P.R. is the future of communications business. So, for those who want to do more than just make a living out of P.R., watch this blog for some interesting takes on P.R.
For the fence-sitters yet to make up their minds, I hope this blog can clear some of your doubts.
And for my most beloved - those in the P.R. baiters club- please be aware that no matter what you say or do, there will always be people who will continue to LOVE this profession!

Some interesting videos:

‘A World Without Public Relations’ by spirited young P.R. pros



‘Creativity in PR: The bigger picture’ by Arun Sudhaman, Partner and Managing Editor, Holmes Report