Leveson enquiry and reputation of UK tabloid media

Does the media "get" the impact of the Leveson enquiry?  I think it is starting to, but it is finding the whole process extraordinarily difficult and alien to it.  Many of the commentators on Newsnight and the Today programme, often  former editors now Professors of Media, seem to me "behind the curve" and very protective of their former colleagues and not aware of the major reputational damage being inflicted.

Associated Newspapers was very ill-advised to put out such an intemperate comment/news piece about Hugh Grant's evidence to the enquiry within just hours of his appearance.   Note that they are no longer allowing comments on this piece and also the announcement does not appear to be on the Associated Newspapers web site!  Leveson was not amused.   These were the comments of a major power broker - editor Paul Dacre and Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday team - under pressure and not at all happy - were they shown to Associated Newspapers?  

News International and now Associated Newspapers both with formidable insight into their readers and customers.   But the evidence of the last year is that both seem to have no understanding of their responsibility to their  wider stakeholders.  Perhaps this is because of their long held power and deference of many stakeholders to them.  Does PR play any influential role at Associated Newspapers - I wonder - I suspect similar to News International which did not understand the role of PR until Edelman came on board in the UK in recent months.

Having just given a lecture on crisis PR in the consumer context, there is a very apt quote from Timothy Coombs and Sherry Holladay in PR Strategy and Application (Ch.12), "crises typically violate how constituents expect an organisation to behave."  Yes, we might have known about some of the tactics of the tabloids which have come out in the Leveson enquiry, but the extent and range of evidence does feel to me like a "violation".  I wonder if we may in a few years look back and realise that Leveson was the start of an important reformation of the tabloid press.

Kaizo talk at Greenwich

A big thanks to Dave Robertson and Bryony Chinnery from Kaizo who gave an interesting talk last night to the Masters PR students on recent work.  This included talking about Cargill's Truvia, a natural sweetener which has just gained EU regulatory approval and which had a major pre-launch event in London in the summer and Unilever VIP, a Facebook community which they have helped develop for the global brand.  

Lobbying - readings part 2

My colleague Paul has come up with some very good additional readings on lobbying.

Dahan, N.M. (2009) "The four Ps of corporate political activity:  a framework for environmental analysis and political action", in Journal of Public Affairs, 9 (2 ), pp. 111-123;

McGrath, C. (2006)  "The ideal lobbyist: Personal characteristics of effective lobbyists", in Journal of Communication Management, 10 (1), pp. 67-79

McGrath, C. et al. (2010) "The evolving discipline of public affairs", in Journal of Public Affairs, 10 (4), pp. 335-352;

Industry Paper: (an oldie, but still a goodie - link supplied, and copy attached)

Parvin, P. (2007) Friend or Foe? Lobbying in British Democracy - a discussion paper, London:  Hansard Society 

[Accessed via http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/downloads/archive/2007/09/24/friend-or-foe-lobbying-in-british-democracy-jan-2007.aspx on 20/11/2011]

Books:-

Strictly functional/nuts and bolts rather than theoretical, but in that respect, probably necessary and worth including.  Has full section on the EU too.

Zetter, L. (2011) Lobbying: The Art of Political Persuasion (2nd ed),  Petersfield: Harriman House 

Lobbying in the EU - readings

This is a list of introductory readings and links which I have put together for the Erasmus IP which Greenwich along with six other universities across Europe is participating in next March in Gent, Louvain and Brussels studying lobbying and government relations in Europe as part of postgraduate public relations study across Europe.   The timing of the intensive two week workshop could not be better with lobbying a topical issue in many countries.  I and my colleagues would be interested to hear about other works which we should be including and any suggestions would be welcome.  I have also included the participating universities below.

Papers and cuttings  

Alter, R. 2010.  Clearer Lobbying for Cleaner Policy Making.  OECD Observer. 

Anon. Lobbying in theEU.  2008.  EU Insight.   

Anon. Coalition Building. Towards a New Agora.  2011.  World Bank. 

Anon.  Expert Group on Conflict of Interest with aspecial session on lobbying: enhancing transparency and accountability, Paris. June 2007.  2007.  OECD.  

Godwin, R. 2011.  Lobbying, a ticking timebomb.  Evening Standard. 14^th Oct. 2011.

Jensen, I. 2002. Public Relations and Emerging Functions ofthe Public Sphere. An Analytical Framework.  Journal of Communication Management.

Mack, R. 2005.  Lobbying effectively in Brusselsand Washington– getting the right result.  Practice Papers.  Journal of Communication Management.

Jaatinen, M.  1998.  Lobbying for conflict accommodation – contingency model.  Corporate Communications.

Svendsen, G.T., 2011. Evaluatingand Regulating the Impacts of lobbying in the EU? The case study of greenindustries.  Environmental Policy and Governance.  Wiley.

Schepers, S. 2010.  Business-government relations: beyondlobbying. Corporate Governance.

de Bussy, N.M., Kelly, L. 2009.  Stakeholders,Politics and Power. Towards and understanding of stakeholder identification andsalience in government.   Journal of Communication Management.

Books

L’Etang, J. 2009.  Public Relations – Concepts, Practice and Critique.  Ch.5. Public Affairs and the Public Sphere.  P.96. Sage.

Von Schendelen, R. 2003.  Machiavelli in Brussels.  The Art of Lobbying the EU.  Amsterdam Press.  http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DqEoqkJ0WIUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=eu+and+lobbying&ots=D8wiCQi6G9&sig=7wapq9gK7ligLcjGmkbzdUjnAYw#v=onepage&q=eu%20and%20lobbying&f=false

Tench, R., Yeoman, L. 2006.  Exploring Public Relations.  Pearson.  Ch.23, Public Affairs. p.447.

Links

Amin., M.  2010.  The “L” Word: Is lobbying actually a sign of progress in developing countries? World Bank blogs.  http://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/node/10439

Alber & Geiger.  2011.  “EU’s leading lobbying law firm.” http://www.albergeiger.com/?gclid=CPPoiaz_9KsCFYMPfAodjSOWJQ

Banks, M. 2011.  UK could “learn from EU” on lobbying rules.  The Parliament.com.  18^th Oct. 2011. http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/uk-could-learn-from-eu-on-lobbying-rules/

Bingle, P. 2011.  Why lobbying is a good thing.  The Dispatch Box, The blog of Bell Pottinger Public Affairs.  http://bp-pa.blogspot.com/2011/10/musing-on-why-lobbying-is-good-thing.html

EU Transparency Register. 2011.  http://europa.eu/transparency-register/index_en.htm

Igan, D., Mishra, P., Tressel, T.  2009.  A Fistful of Dollars : Lobbying and the Financial Crisis.  IMF Working Paper.  Accessed online.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/wp09287.pdf

Lobbying in the European Union.  Current Rules and Practices.  2003.  European Parliament.  http://ec.europa.eu/civil_society/interest_groups/docs/workingdocparl.pdf

OECD.  2008.  Lobbyists, governments and public trust.  Building a legislative framework for enhancing transparency and accountability in lobbying. http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3746,en_2649_34135_41074896_1_1_1_1,00.html

Sharif, H.  2011.  I hate lobbyists. And I am one. But they are absolutely necessary.  The Commentator.  18^th Oct. 2011. http://www.thecommentator.com/article/546/i_hate_lobbyists_and_i_am_one_but_they_are_absolutely_necessary_

Worst EU Lobby Awards.   http://www.worstlobby.eu/

European partners in Erasmus IP

Université Catholique de Louvain  http://www.uclouvain.be/

Arteveldehogeschool   www.arteveldehs.be

Nancy-Université

(Université Nancy2)   http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/

Universitatea din Bucureşti   http://www.unibuc.ro/depts/litere/dcrp/index.php

Universidad Cardenal Herrera  www.uch.ceu.es

Instituto Superior de Novas Profissoes  http://www.inp.pt/

University of Greenwich www.gre.ac.uk

Facebook and privacy - how will it impact on the IPO?

It would appear that there is a growing concern over recent Facebook changes which in turn raises more general worries over Facebook's approach to privacy.  Certainly speaking to my students today, all active Facebook users (I am not a Facebook user), there is growing concern about the new changes.   Next year's likely IPO for the company must raise concerns that the company will seek to commercialise too quickly, something which Sir Martin Sorrell has recently alluded to at the recent Royal Television Society Cambridge conference.

Siemens shows awareness of societal pressures

The decision by Siemens to withdraw from the supply of nuclear power stations is a particularly interesting consequence of what Jensen might term "organisational legitimacy and identity in the public sphere" in her important 2001 paper on the application of the public sphere to public relations practice.   According to the announcement, Siemens is withdrawing from the supply of nuclear power plants responding to the "clear positioning of German society and politics for a pullout from nuclear energy".  

In other words it is not responding to market conditions but to societal pressure.  In most markets, Siemens supply of nuclear systems would be entirely socially acceptable, particularly in the current environment with jobs such a key focus for most countries but the announcement from Siemens suggests that Germany's focus on alternative energy makes this market focus no longer acceptable from such a major German supplier.  It is a very different decision to, for example, the reversal of Shell's Piper Alpha disposal which was taken in a crisis PR situation facing widespread public hostility.  This decision appears to be the consequence of what might be called rational discourse in the public sphere and Siemens reading of the situation as a reflective "economically successful, legal and responsible company".

What will the Siemens' shareholders think of the decision?

Spills and Spin

A book we are planning to use alongside other works on our MA PR Corporate Communications course (within the MA PR programme) this coming year is Tom Bergin's Spills and Spin: The inside story of BP.  He has been an oil analyst with Reuters for a number of years so brings a strong understanding of the sector to his coverage of BP's problems.  Incidentally, today's Sunday Times reminds how BP is still struggling to move forward and one suspects to survive over the next three years on its own (would the UK government allow a takeover?).
(http://www.oilspillnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/1295067618-47.jpg)

I am only half way through but the book is really strong on exploring the culture,  organisation and personalities of BP as well as understanding the role of the communications, media and financial markets.  So it is an ideal book alongside the course before we even get to sessions on crisis PR.

The book is strong on setting the context for the Gulf accident.  It was well known that BP has had problems with building a strong safety culture for many years (way before the Texas refinery disaster in 2005) which does raise the question how could the main board directors have allowed both Browne and then Hayward to downgrade the minimal safety culture which was in place, even further by signing off so many cutbacks.

One of the issues which the BP saga throws up for corporate communications teams with major companies is what do you do if you sense your senior management is not managing the company in a prudent fashion.  To have two major accidents on American soil (Texas refinery) and US waters (Gulf rig) in less than five years as BP did, suggests major flaws in the organisation.  Bergin also highlights that the macho culture under Hayward (unlike Browne) led to a number of senior women leaving BP - an early warning sign?

As some commentators have pointed out, it is strange that the two bosses critically involved in BP have moved on from BP with apparent ease.   Lord Browne went on to advise the government on the future of universities and the adoption of market pricing (hopefully BP's trajectory is not an indicator of future problems in academia); while Hayward is set to make millions with Nat Rothschild in a new energy venture.  It turns out that both appear to have left all the problems behind with BP; while their own personal reputations seems relatively unscathed.  In complete contrast with Fred Godwin whose reputation has continued to decline while RBS' would appear to have strengthened.   Something of a mystery.

Command and control model of PR takes another hit with fall of DSK

The DSK affair in New York has led to much soul searching in the French media.  In particular, about their  attitude towards DSK and his well-known attitude to women but more generally about lack of exposure of what some French female commentators are saying was a macho culture in the French political class generally.

At the same time, the French media have turned on the PR team behind Dominic Strauss-Kahn and have explored in detail their tactics in managing the DSK brand - a very powerful one in French politics which could have well led to him becoming the next French President before the brand and his career came to a grinding halt in the Sofitel hotel in New York.  If the reports are accurate, then the model of PR adopted by his team was a classic example of command and control, similar to the Campbell/Blair model in the early years of New Labour.

DSK was advised by a small team of top PR advisers operating out of one of the top French and international communications operations, Euro-RSCG in Paris.  The same people are also advisors to many of leading French organisations and individuals.  Of course in the French language, the term PR or "relations publique" is hardly ever used; it is communications or com for short reflecting the strong influence of marketing and advertising in the development of PR in the French market.

The history of "command and control" as a PR tactic in any country is it seems reassuringly effective in the early days but when it fails, as fail it will, it tends to crash with spectacular results.  In an era of social media, organisations, leaders and brands need to understand that the give and take of comments, compliments and criticisms is part of the process of operating in a global market.  It is part of the "licence to operate" which any politician and organisation needs to gain from what is seen to be an equitable or in Grunigian terms a symmetrical relationship with stakeholders and society.   PR practitioners need to encourage organisations to participate in this process not to try to hide away or control the flow of communications as in the case of DSK and the PR team behind his rise and fall.

Edelman comes on board to help Murdoch

Having just completed my blog yesterday on the lack of touch shown by News Corporation and the Murdoch family in the crisis facing them and I see that Edelman have been appointed to assist.  A very good move as they are experienced practitioners and understand that modern organisations have to build a constituency of support across stakeholders.   They cannot rely on a shareholder only model for operations and communications which the Murdoch family have to date adopted in extremis. 

Already there seems a better touch to the responses by the family not least agreeing to appear before the House of Commons committee next week.  Rupert Murdoch's interview with the Wall Street Journal was ill-judged both in choice of media (they should seek a non-Murdoch owned media) and in comments and the Edelman relationship with Rupert is going to be a fascinating to observe to see if he will take advice.   The resignation announced this morning of Rebekah Brooks only helps.  Certainly it is going to be an interesting case study in crisis and corporate communications over the coming weeks and months.

Murdoch family's heritage hinders understanding of role of communications in time of crisis

The inability of the Murdoch family and senior management of News Corporation and News International to engage publicly with the forces at play which are tapping at the very foundations of the organisation betrays all too clearly the way they have traditionally done business in the past.   They have prospered in a world of meetings behind closed doors; of private meetings to brief key stakeholders on the agendas which were important to the family and the organisation; of sympathetic treatment by their own media to communicate key agendas.  All could be termed the traditional approach to public relations based on controlling communications and agendas and in their case, actually controlling media.   There is no sense of them understanding the role of public relations in a modern democracy, building a constituency of support through dialogue with wider stakeholders which most organisations have started to learn and adopt.  

Why is nobody speaking for the Murdochs; or why are the the family not themselves speaking out?  They have some of the best PR advice through their son-in-law, Matthew Freud but their continued silence speaks of their uncertainty and lack of understanding of these difficult times.   The only forms of communication - and unintended - currently from the  Murdoch family are hurried snaps taken by the paparazzi of the family and senior executives behind tinted car windows as they rush from one "fortress" or underground carpark to another.  Images of the bunker provide a powerful narrative for other media and for the general public.

(Daily Telegraph.)

The family need to communicate in these difficult times as their continued silence must be starting to having significant damage on the morale of people working for the company; only heightened by Gordon Brown's extraordinary outburst in Parliament yesterday where he called News International a "criminal media nexus".  Here is a former Prime Minister calling a major global corporation a criminal enterprise - has this ever happened before in Parliament?  I doubt it.  Comments like this will be noted in the USA and in global capital markets and will be a question mark against the organisation and its reputation.

Crisis PR models suggest that the Murdochs probably thought that phone hacking was an issue not a developing crisis and so did not respond adequately when they had the time.  Their initial response would also appear to have involved a cover-up.   Timothy Coombs a leading academic in the field of crisis communications also highlights that crises which are due to organisational "misdeeds" such as cover-ups have the most severe consequences.  

Equally crisis communications models would also indicate that today's crisis can become a different crisis tomorrow.   I think it is increasingly likely that the Murdoch family will be required to step back from day to day management in their media operations under a "fit and proper" ruling and become passive investors with much smaller stakes than they have at present both in the UK and USA.  That is the much larger crisis which they may face and how they respond now will determine that very potential outcome in two or three years time.

Reputation agendas and research

Came across the Ipsos-Mori Reputation Research Council which includes the views of 38 Directors of PR and Communications for leading UK companies primarily.   The latest survey and feedback from members is included.  Data suggests that a low priority is given to EU elected and departmental officials (p.25) in terms of both who the CEO listens to and as a stakeholder group which the organisations regards as important in terms of  "licence to operate".  This is surprising for such large companies and I wonder if it would be echoed with a more pan-European communications network?

While I hope to attend the Oxford University Said Business School's Reputation Symposium later this summer. Some interesting working papers with PR relevance are also available on the site or via the author.

Facebook - might they introduce a corporate community charge?

A recent piece in the Financial Times about a visit to Facebook's headquarters by leading figures from the advertising industry got me thinking about the potential valuation figures for the company when it floats next year as most commentators predict.   I think that the valuation figures being quoted from $75-100bn are probably feasible based on its size and potential but I do not see advertising as we know it, being the driver of revenue, in fact just the opposite.  Facebook is not about transactional relationships but communal or social relationships and although this may be changing on the edges, I don't think at its core it is changing.  However there are other commercial opportunities.

 One of the students at Greenwich was showing me recently some of the brands she follows on Facebook including the fashion magazine Glamour which has over 20,000 followers or friends.  Having looked at some of the UK retail brands such as M&S which has over 250,000 and it is clear that a growing number of businesses are understanding how to develop active and relevant communities on Facebook which support their other online and offline activities.

But this brings no money into Facebook - as far as I can see.  However, as a guess I would have said that the active community on Facebook for Glamour magazine must be worth at least £10k a month to Glamour magazine, maybe more (50p per user per month?).   I cannot see any reason why Glamour magazine would want to advertise on Facebook, when it already has such an active community which will spread by word of mouth and through the magazine and web site.  What must the M&S site be worth to Marks & Spencer with a much larger community?

However, in the future, might Facebook look to impose a community or poll tax when a corporate community has reached a critical mass of members say over 15,000/20,000 but could be smaller depending on size of  organisation.  Facebook might select to charge only for commercial organisations not NGOs or charities but potentially could be a significant source of revenue and I doubt that Facebook would lose many brands as a result.  I think this is a possibility as one of the very clever approaches which Facebook has followed from the start is building the size of the network before it seeks to commercialise.   Let more and more companies see the benefit of belonging to Facebook and then introduce a corporate community tax when they are on the hook and feel commercially they cannot withdraw.

In this scenario, Facebook can be seen as the owner of a very desirable shopping centre which charges a commercial rent for organisations to have a shop front in the world's largest social network.  The benefit of this potential approach is it would not impact on the social relationships at the core of the Facebook model which earlier attempts based on conventional advertising have done before being withdrawn. 

Lobbying and government relations in the public sphere

The University of Greenwich is part of an Erasmus Intensive Programme (IP) submission providing Masters students in PR and communications the opportunity to research and study government relations and public lobbying in the European public sphere over an intensive two week period.  If successful and the decision will be known in the summer from the EU, then Masters students from Greenwich and six other European universities running Masters programmes in public relations/communications will be participating in a joint programme based in Louvain, Gent and Brussels for two weeks in March 2012.  The programme along with a programme of lectures and seminars includes visits and workshops with industry/NGO and EU participation  across a range of current lobbying and government relations agendas.  The programme will be repeated in 2013 and 2014.   It will be the first ever Erasmus IP with a public relations focus.

                             European Commission, Brussels. (Photo courtesy of: Financial Regulation.)

 The programme will be exploring issues around public diplomacy, agenda setting in publiic, legitimacy and transparency in lobbying and government relations based on a public sphere model of practice. Traditionally lobbying and government relations has been seen (and is to varying degrees in practice) an activity taking place behind closed doors.  The EU, as its White Paper on communications (2006) highlights, is moving towards a public sphere model of communications, supported by growing transparency legislation, and the influence of social media, so this tension at the heart of lobbying and government relations in the EU makes the relevance of this programme proposal strongly.  Recent coverage of MEPs resigning over payments for lobbying further strengthens the case for the Erasmus IP programme and for greater research and consideration of practices in the sector.

The programme is being led by the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium with strong support from the Artevelde University College of Ghent. The other universities involved include: University of Nancy 2 in France; University of Bucharest in Romania; University Cardinal Herrera in Valencia, Spain; INP in Lisbon, Portugal; and University of Greenwich, London, UK.   The Erasmus IP proposal is a tribute to the hard work of the MARPE network of PR universities and in particular Anne-Marie Cotton at Artevelde University College Ghent.

PR currently lacks role in MBA curriculum - "a notable omission"

An important initiative from the PR Society of America - getting PR in general and in particular reputation management and corporate communications onto the MBA timetable as a recemt comment piece in the FT highlights.   As PR has now got into the boardroom as a strategic management function surely it must be only time before it becomes part of the MBA curriculum?  However, has PR yet got enough influence or academic credibility within the great business schools to effect this change?

                                          Harvard Business School - birthplace of MBA.

I am not sure.  For example, the Said Business School at Oxford which has a Centre for Corporate Reputation shows no apparent interest in PR's contribution to the subject when I last looked.  Certainly when PR does get onto the MBA curriculum does it will be an important milestone on the professionalisation of PR.