Glance Back, then Look Ahead

It's a common question when reviewing a data stream from Vocus, Meltwater or other communications data providers -- how did we do?

There's nothing wrong with taking a critical look at past performance. In fact, objective, qualitative measures are overdue in much of the PR world, with many shops and practitioners only having adopted basic tracking (beyond clippings) in recent years.

But a few innovators are looking at the same data set and asking an entirely different question -- what does this mean for the future? They're using the past to look forward.

Is predictive modeling a major step in communications programming? Absolutely.

With the pace and volume at which communications are moving across the world, predictive analytics provide a significant competitive advantage. What does the last day's digital stream say about what will likely transpire tomorrow? Where's the trend line headed of the crisis unfolding before you? Will person X continue to be an influencer on a hot topic next month, or will her star fade?

So the next time you open your browser window and log into your measurement dashboard, take a second look at what you're seeing. That dream of a crystal ball is becoming closer with every passing day.

A Faltering Obligation

Communities have typically benefited from the companies that call them home. I'm not talking about the job creation or impact to the tax base, but philanthropic outreach that over time has become taken for granted.

Unfortunately, that very mindset -- of considering philanthropic giving, whether in dollars or volunteer hours, as a given -- has eroded many corporations' local giving programs. With demand for greater return from investors, charitable giving is a seemingly easy cut to make.

Why not, right? Many executives view a community's reliance on corporate support as unsustainable, and are offended by the entitlement mentality. The fault herein lies with organizations continually extending their hands for grants, yet offering nothing to the company in return in the way of reputation gain.

The good news is that mentality among local non-profits is shifting, bolstered by advocates such as Curt Weeden. They're seeing -- slowly -- the need for the win-win.

The bad news, however, is that corporations are continuing to slide on this front... something Weeden's latest book -- Smart Giving is Good Business -- lays out in exquisite detail.

At the heart of the matter is corporate misunderstanding about the role of philanthropy, and how it can advance business. But at the same time, especially as it applies to local giving, I can't help but wonder if this is tied to a trend among senior executives to be less involved in civic pursuits on a personal level.

Yes, many execs hold multiple local and regional board seats for appearance purposes, but fewer seem to be actively engaged, citing time pressures. Add to that a growing trend of executives who work remotely -- and who never truly affiliate themselves with their adopted communities -- and you have a class of disconnected, socially-unaware leaders.

As a former Fortune 1000 senior executive who had direct oversight for philanthropic pursuits, I experienced the challenge first hand. Peers found it too easy to dismiss grant requests, even those promising a win-win, since they didn't understand the community itself. What suffered were the very organizations that made the community appealing for employees -- visual and performing arts, social assistance, enhanced education and more.

In no uncertain terms, a corporation has a philanthropic obligation to the communities in which it is based. But without meaningful personal involvement from senior business leaders, dollars will continue to be held back.

Have you succeeded or failed in getting your executive team to be personally involved in the community? Share your stories with a comment.

Alternate Pathways

One recent evening, I rounded a corner at home to find my 10-year-old sighing and rolling his eyes. A fourth grade mathematics worksheet lay on the table. "Why," he huffed, "do I have to show my work?"

His protest led me to a movie-like flashback (sans the blurred, wavy visual transition). How many times had I heard those same words from teachers while growing up, or found them scrawled on a returned page (even with the right answer in place)? Like father, like son.

Now Kyle is a kid who doesn't need to work through math problems on the paper in front of him. He's blessed with an analytical mind, and grows frustrated when he has to take extra time to document what he feels should be obvious. He proffers that as long as his outcome is correct -- the goal, after all -- why should the pathway be scrutinized?

His experience mirrors what many of us will face in our professional lives -- managers or peers so focused on specific mechanics that they lose sight of the end game. The reasons are many: they can more easily measure the tactics vs. outcomes, they only know one way of accomplishing the goal, or they're scared of innovative (and possibly better) approaches.

So what can you do? As someone facing a "show your work" manager, build up trust gradually, laying out your paths multiple times over various projects until you've proven yourself. Then again, with some superiors who love to micro-manage, you may have to adapt your own style (or seek an alternative role).

More importantly, as leaders, we can build organization and teams where the outcome is more important than a rigidly defined pathway. In these instances, the ideal is not simply showing the work, but discussing and debating techniques (both applied and discarded) in search of more efficient and more effective methodologies.

I was fortunate early in my career to have been taught this lesson. Ever since, the degree to which my teams have consistently amazed me and delighted clients and colleagues with innovative, unconventional approaches has been significant.

So the next time you're ready to be directive, pause for a moment. Instead of "show your work," try "explore your work." What transpires – the outcome and route taken – might surprise you.

The Ethics of Competitive Depositioning

The Burson-Facebook debacle has pointed a spotlight toward a component of the communications industry that few understand, and many don't care to discuss -- competitive depositioning. It can be seen as sully, underhanded and even unethical... the worst type of PR.

But we need to separate competitive depositioning from smear campaigns.

The classic smear, of course, involves running a competitor through the mud, often hiding your own identity and masking the intent (see fig. 1 - Burson). Not only does it violate the industry's ethics guidelines regarding clear identification of a sponsoring organization, but it also often results in backlash.

Depositioning, on the other hand, seeks to openly call into question claims made or actions taken by competitors. In essence, it is part of a check-and-balance process that ultimately keeps the marketplace more honest.

For instance, when I was leading communications strategy development for Kodak's cost-play entry into the home inkjet printer market, one competitor loomed large -- Hewlett-Packard. Now for anyone who has ever bought an inkjet cartridge, you know the pain that surges through your body at checkout. How much did that tiny piece of plastic just cost?

We struck early and often at HP's "value" pricing models, whether by poking fun at the outrageous cost of their inks, developing ink cost calculators, or asking journalists to investigate the issue of their own accord. Our role was not to provide the answers, but to place questions into the marketplace that would lead consumers to discover the truth themselves. And yes, we always identified ourselves as Kodak.

Burson and Facebook fell short by turning to the cloak and dagger routine. Challenging Social Circle's privacy was not at issue (although I personally believe it to be not all that threatening), but in the manner in which it was conducted.

Let's hope this black eye for Burson will be a warning call to shady practices elsewhere. But at the same time, let's not throw away a valuable approach -- competitive depositioning -- that has the power to shape a marketplace for the better.

Twitter: The Great SM Proxy

Studying the room after a few minutes, it was clear that a few people were lost. The speech had been billed as a view into the future of social media, and the speaker had not spent nearly any time discussing Twitter.

Perfect! The audience – a group of communications executives from the cable and broadcasting industry gathered on Manhattan’s Upper East Side -- was exactly where I’d hoped. My unorthodox approach had made them question what they believed to be good and true, that Twitter WAS the future.

It’s easy to become all consumed by the ubiquitous nature of Twitter, believing it is setting the tone for the future of digital communications and conversation. In some ways, it is, but it’s unwise to overlook the myriad start-ups rolling out cutting-edge SM applications, whether GeoIQ for location-intelligence visualization, Klout for influence scoring or Hearsay for corporate SM compliance.

“Wait,” you protest. “Services such as those rely on a few digital media platforms for their content. Without Twitter, they wouldn’t exist.” Not necessarily.

A recent report pegged Twitter usage at just eight percent of the U.S. population, so its ubiquity may be more a mindset of “in the know” communications professionals than reality. That’s dangerous. Not because being Twitter-conversant isn’t important, but because of how many practitioners are treating the service: as the only game in town.

What about Hyves in the Netherlands? Or Renren in China? Wait, is Orkut still going strong in Brazil? As much as we think the world is global, localized services – even in the digital universe – can and often do win out.

Therein lay the secret. Look to Twitter as a proxy, not the be-all-end-all. Applications only pulling in and crunching Twitter content streams will soon be doing the same for other platforms (JitterJam, recently acquired by Meltwater, is a good example).

And when that occurs, where will you be? Will you have built programs and campaigns so specific to Twitter that you’ll be forced to continue down that path, or will you expand your line of sight to an even richer flow of information from additional sources?

When Recruitment Sites Fail

The company-endorsed (in fact, promoted) blemish to its own reputation. It's been lurking under your nose for years. Right there in plain sight.

Behold the over-looked, under-funded and outdated recruiting Web site. Not the Flash-intensive, smiling faces, bells-and-whistles marketing front-end, but the applicant back-end.

I've been guilty of ignoring this aspect of recruitment branding myself. As a senior communications executive, I had believed that functional applications systems were keeping pace with the more visible work my teams were doing. I was wrong.

So what can organizations do to propel their online application process (or "getting you in the system," as HR specialists are fond of saying) into the 21st century? I offer three suggestions:

1. Deploy a Universal Template. With multiple organizations using common solutions providers such as Kenexa/BrassRing, adopt a universal template for automatic population of basic data fields, with applicant information stored in a virtual, secure clearinghouse. A number of universities have been using a common application for years -- it's time for the corporate world to catch up.

2. Ensure Mobile Compatibility. The rise of mobile devices, whether smart phones or tablets, increases the chances that potential hires will be using them to input their data. When a drop-down menu is rendered useless on an iPad, expect your social-savvy applicants to dust off their #fail hash tags.

3. Set Expectations. Advise the applicant on the opening screen as to what information you'll be gathering (or in some instances, will not be requesting). Sites run the gamut, from simply asking for a resume upload to suddenly springing a 60-question MBTI-like personality assessment. Follow the no surprises rule, and your non-complete percentage will plummet.

Having worked with (and in) HR organizations for years, it's clear that many recruitment specialists share these sentiments, but are content with "good enough" when faced with budget and time pressures. But is "good enough" the impression you want to leave with high potential talent?

ACCP 2011: Engaging Corporate Communicators

When the request came from the Association for Corporate Contributions Professionals to present a keynote at its annual conference, I jumped at the chance. I figured there would be no better platform to share information about Bausch + Lomb's new global signature program -- the Pediatric Cataract Initiative -- which is focused on conquering a critical cause of childhood blindness.

Yet as I put pen to paper last week (then bits and bytes to a few slides), a realization hit... this would not solely be about the program we'd created, but about why it's been so successful to date. Namely, that the B+L communications team is 110-percent on board (in fact, we co-founded the program alongside our peers).

Only by truly engaging communications peers can corporate philanthropy programs exceed the social and business results to which they aspire. How should you engage? I offer three simple tenets -- bring the important players together from the start, deliver a program with focused differentiation, and rally around a goal that's bigger and more promising that what is simply "achievable."

While the slides mean little without the accompanying commentary, feel free to download a PDF version by clicking here.

The Speed of New: Gator Edition

Mid-week, I'll be in Gainesville, Fla. at the invitation of the Alpha Chapter of the Public Relations Student Society of America, leading a discussion on how our profession is rapidly changing with the 24-second news cycle.

What will be especially intriguing are the viewpoints of University of Florida students -- young professionals who, in many cases, have only known the round-the-clock, digitally-driven news and content production environment. Will their experiences match up to the new demands of the communications industry?

For those of you playing along at home (or in the dorms), slides can be downloaded here.

Philanthropy's "New Normal"

“Corporate giving is undergoing a dramatic shift. Expectations are changing from transactional relationships to partnerships, with the company and recipient collaborating for success,” notes Mark Shamley, president and CEO of the Association of Corporate Contributions Professionals. “Philanthropy needs to be integrated with business objectives. As a result, the selection process is also evolving."

I just put my next PR News "Management POV" column to bed, focused on this topic, which has resulted in a significant shift in how Bausch + Lomb is approaching philanthropy. If you're a PR News subscriber, look for it soon! If not, I'll also cover the topic as part of my luncheon keynote at ACCP's annual conference on March 8 in Seattle.

PRSA Rochester Luncheon Slides

Join me and colleagues from my adopted hometown -- Rochester, NY -- on Thursday, January 27, for an abbreviated version of the "Speed of New" discussion as presented at the 2009 and 2010 PRSA International Conferences. Click here to visit the PRSA Rochester home page.