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.