It pays to read this section of the Wall Street Journal; you never know who you can meet!

As part of my new business strategy, I strive to make relationships with the VC and private equity communities.  While it makes a lot of business sense, we also have a lot in common and have always contended that (one day) a PR shop should go into business with a VC group to not just go after businesses that are worth investing in, but to seek out ways to merchandise the efforts of these investments.

So when I saw the following article in AD AGE this morning about Madison Avenue forming a relationship with VC partners, I got shivers down my spine.  There is hope that my vision could come true.

Investment banks look for return on assets that strengthen financial statements.  PR firms can help leverage assets–both tangible and intangible.  At SMPR, we strive to hit on any innovation buttons we can, for these are the very buttons that trigger asset development.

Anyone who knows me in the PR world has heard my explanation of PR and how it mirrors economics–clients have a supply of information, and it is our job to match the demand of the marketplace with what our clients are supplying.  Our currency is content.  In the VC and PR worlds, content is king.

If any PR folks are doing something like what this article is describing, I would be curious to learn about your feedback.

Recently, I posted an article on SMPR’s Facebook page about how the DETROIT NEWS (my hometown newspaper) seemingly threw its ethical codes out the window (not to mention selling its soul) and changed an article to soothe an advertiser’s wallet and ego.  Combined with the latest Groupon fiasco and its ad blunder (I wrote about this issue on A Sorry State), maybe it’s time to skin the cat differently.

So I thought it would be cool to share something that is cool about ethics, specifically talking about how our friends in the advertising industry are making efforts to bring more of an ethical position into their operations.

Check out the following article from ADVERTISING AGE on the industry’s attempt to get more ethical.  These are really good ideas; what do y’all think?

One of the great passions I have about this business is teaching junior people about the rigors of public relations, and (in turn) what people in my field have taught me.  I was talking with a friend who operates a great agency in Dallas; we were talking about what each of us has learned about running a business, as well as what we would have done differently if given the opportunity.

Speaking to the latter point, I would not have changed a single thing and have done anything differently. Running a business, you quickly learn how to take the good with the bad. If you cannot take lumps in this business, then you shouldn’t be in it. To be sure, I have built a much tougher and stronger skin than when I first embarked on my journey now almost eight years ago. I have seen people come and go; clients start with a bang but spend funds miserably and fail. I have seen the highest of the highs and the lowest of the lows. I have made incredible friends and have formed several meaningful relationships.

 
Still, I have learned a lot—more than any of my college studies could have prepared me for. Here are some thoughts.

 
Understand the power of “no.” It’s easy for business owners to take on things because the money is appealing or the allure of having a “name client” associated with you would add to your reputation. Saying ‘no’ is empowering, for it allows you to focus on what you truly want to do. “No” keeps your eyes on the prize of ultimate satisfaction.

 
The customer/client should not always be right. Logic tells me when presented with an array of options, I want to make as informed of a decision as possible; life is not one way or the highway. I also rely on my past experiences about what journalists want; I would expect both my peers and fellow colleagues would follow the same path.  As an agency, we are hired to bring an objective voice to our clients’ tables. Maybe it’s because I have more gray hairs than when I first started the business, but I take my role as a counselor more seriously than ever. I have learned to cement my position by proving it with smart research and positioning and not just do what a client thinks is the most ideal course of action. I would never go back to a client and tell him/her “I told you so…” but I would go back to what I know has worked for others–and could work for them if given the opportunity.

 
Hiring a business coach is a wise investment. It’s one thing to preach objectivity to your clients, but it is hard to obtain objectivity running an agency—especially when it is your agency. I have learned how to distinguish things between the SMPR brand and that of Michael Shmarak; I used to take things personally when something went wrong. But as many people have come to tell me, it’s just business. We need to remember that business should stay where it belongs. To that end…

 
…tell your spouse and kids that you love them as often as possible. I set up SMPR to represent beliefs I have that agencies need to be treated like families, that if a family member’s name is on the door, then the belief set should represent the person/people who you are honoring. I have tried to bring “family” into everything I do, inclusive of making sure that my team enjoys their lives outside of work. Understandably, my team means the world to me, and I try to communicate the value they bring as often as possible. But I would be nothing without my wife and three kids. Hugs from children are the best elixir for soothing a bad day at the office. Clients come and go; my wife and kids are always with me. It is up to me to make sure they know that.

 
Client love is the ultimate measurement tool. If a client merely likes its PR counsel, then the agency is not doing enough to foster the relationship. I know about my clients’ kids, their families, what they do outside of the office, et.al., to show that we (as people) are deeper than what a letter of agreement tells us we should be. Striving for client love does as much for what makes good clients awesome clients as any deliverable you can provide.

 
Know the right time to reinvent your business. When I started SMPR in 2003, social media was just beginning to hit the mainstream. There were several agencies that got on the bandwagon early, going as so far as to say they do it—and do it well.  Me?  I would rather wait and let other people make mistakes so I can learn from them.  In turn, I can then take this education and shape it in a way that best fits who I am as a professional, as well as what my team knows it does well. Claiming to be all things to all people deteriorates one’s focus. We should all strive to own something and be really good at it first. Do we do social media work? Of course, but we specialize in helping companies build their infrastructure so they are ready for what social media has to offer.

Above all else, I have been blessed to learn that my team’s work has impacted lives. We take it for granted that PR can help influence other people’s decision making processes. When you’re leading the charge for those decisions, there is an immense source of pride and accomplishment. There are so many examples of how we have enacted change I could go on all day.

Moving forward, I want to learn how to learn better.  I want to get smarter about more tricks of the trade.  I want to build deeper relationships and find work that drives satisfaction for all of us.

It starts today.

The site may be All Things Digital, but their work is All Things Ethical.

Among the many things I read online and in print, I am a big fan of the Wall Street Journal’s “All Things Digital.”  Having been engrossed in media relations for most of my 15-plus years in the business, I have found that Kara Swisher is among the most insightful journalists out there. Every time I read a story from her, I learn something.

I was reading her most recent post about Google’s seemingly pending acquisition of Groupon, and noticed a line at the end of her story:  Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

I was shocked–in a very good way–when I saw a headline that read, “Kara’s Ethics Statement.”  What was even more cool was the choice of words that Kara offered to her readers:  “Here is a statement of my ethics and coverage policies. It is more than most of you want to know, but, in the age of suspicion of the media, I am laying it all out.” Kudos to Kara for sharing with her readers how she feels about the integrity of her work.

Here at SMPR, we hear the stories about PR pros and journalists, alike, who are called into question about the types of work they do.  With many of our clients, we work with them to draft ethical mission statements in addition to traditional mission statements & key messages to distinguish “sales” from “beliefs.”  In both cases, people need to have trust in what the company does, but how you say each has to be completely different.

Some of the best journalist relationships we have are based on ethics.  We know what people will and won’t cover.  We know that when we position a company, that we are prepared to do so objectively.  If there is something negative about a client that someone brings to our attention and we know it exists, we won’t spin things.  We’ll be honest and upfront–and expect our clients to do the same thing.

We would hope that more journalists follow Kara Swisher’s lead and print their ethics statements for all to see.  For now on, I will still continue to read Kara’s work; I will just appreciate it that much more.

Disclosure on my part:  I have never worked with Kara directly, but hope to one day when the right client comes along.

Will Google's Instant Search be not so instant after all?

Whitney is on a roll these days, so we don’t want to hold her back…

When Google introduced the new Instant Search feature at the end of September, marketers were intrigued to hear that there was a list of words that instant search couldn’t utilize. That was just the beginning.

In a press conference, Google’s reps explained that Google didn’t have a master list of words and phrases that were blacklisted for instant search. Instead, it uses algorithms to distinguish between phrases that are more “family friendly” than others.  What is really interesting is the list of words that have been compiled that aren’t filtered out through this algorithm.  2600 (“The Hacker Quarterly”) has created a page with a list of what phrases are blacklisted and what words and phrases slip through on to instant search (much to some people’s surprise).
It is completely understandable that Google would take action to make sure instant search doesn’t provide little kids with information their young eyes should not see. What is confusing is that it is letting certain words through and blocking other phrases that aren’t all that offensive.

Check out Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit;” that phrase is blocked.  Words that you wouldn’t traditionally utter in public (i.e., “swear words”) are not blocked.  WTF?

Now, this is a brand new feature; in time, the algorithms will hopefully adapt to keep out a wider range of inappropriate words.  What about titles of songs, and names of journalists, like Ms. Slutsky who was present at the press conference. She commented that her name was one of the words that was blocked from instant search.

In a time when people are getting more and more impatient, what will instant search do to those who want answers quickly?  Yes, you can still type in “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and get links to Nirvana and the song. Will there come a day when people are too lazy to enter one more keystroke to search the entire phrase?  Who is to say that Google should be editing what shows up on an instant search anyway?  If we are all educated people using the free and open Internet, we should all understand that you get what you search for.

What will this mean for PR when a practitioner searches using Google?  Let’s say they’re looking for the journalist Ms. Slutsky and prefer using instant search.  Her name wouldn’t appear and a possible connection and opportunity for the client is lost.  As PR practitioners, we will have to look at how popular instant search becomes and how to ensure that our name and our clients’ names don’t get “blacklisted.”

Imagine what that could do to your SEO if everyone became dependent on instant search and the words associated with your product were for some reason blacklisted.

This new invention by Google seems to be a tool whose worth we, as professionals in our field and as a society, will have to weigh as it continues to grow.

Could using a PDA be bad for your corporate health?

Über-intern Whitney checks in with a very smart analysis of how technology could impede the practice of corporate communications.  Take it away, Whitney…

Since the advent of smartphones people have had a new challenge placed in front of them.  It isn’t how often you can check in on Foursquare or how fast you can look up a fact to prove a point.  In fact, it’s a challenge of etiquette, of how we as a society are choosing to balance face-to-face interactions against online relationships.

Recently Gini Dietrich covered this on her blog, Spin Sucks. After reading her post we felt compelled to chime in as well.

If you look around a coffee shop, restaurant or on the train it’s safe to say you’ll see at least a dozen people with their phones out, waiting for them to light up with an alert that something is happening in their digital world.  When people are this focused on maintaining their networks online they are often neglecting the relationship and networking opportunities right next to them—in the “real world.”

In the not so distant past, it was viewed as rude to answer a phone call during a meeting; now, it’s practically expected.  It’s hard to make a blanket statement saying that everyone should ignore their phones while conducting business, at the workplace or when out with colleagues and friends.

Still, SMPR encourages clients to think about how one’s corporate reputation—not to mention one’s personal brand—can be hindered if your PDA runs your life and not the other way around.

Remember this—people with whom you network over the Web cannot see that you’re ignoring a client when Tweeting during a meeting, but that client sure can. What will they tweet, think or say about you after their face-to-face interaction with you where you were MIA?

Over the last few years, there have been more than a fair share of  “pot shots” thrown at PR people who perform less than what is expected of them.  Recently, there was a case of a firm posting favorable comments on iTunes–and the FTC called them out.  Without question, they deserved to be caught.  And as most cases like this play out, many media outlets take any chance they can get for rolling PR under the proverbial bus.

What happens, though, when the tables are turned?  What happens when media outlets don’t do the necessary fact-checking to make sure THEIR work is ethical, objective and above ground?

I bring this up as I was sent an online video from CRAIN’S CHICAGO BUSINESS this week.  In it, an events company account executive touts how good this one restaurant was, how amazing some of the dishes were, how you couldn’t walk out of there without feeling like you were at one of the best restaurants in Chicago.  If I were their PR person, I would be ecstatic with such a piece.

Yet, I have to wonder if the people putting this segment together did their homework about the restaurant, the source and the history between the two.

• The account executive mentioned in the video just happens to be the daughter of one of the restaurant company’s top executives.  I know this because I met them both at a charity function, and I entered the father’s business card into my Rolodex.
• The father was a top executive at one of Chicago’s TV stations, so it is my business to know who works where in the media, as well as who moves on.  His name is recognizable, so it piqued my curiosity to confirm that the daughter was the same person I met at the event.
• The story neglects to mention that this account executive also used to work at this restaurant at one time in her career.

Those who know me how much I respect business media, and I LOVE CRAIN’S here in Chicago.  It is such a good media outlet and enterprise, that it surprised me to see something like this story actually making it to the public.

I am passionate about ethics in both PR and journalism.  This story reads and feels awkward, especially since it’s my job to know the city’s “who’s who.”  This is not the fair, balanced and objective journalism I am used to seeing in CRAIN’S; it looks like Daddy’s little girl is promoting Daddy’s company on CRAIN’S dime.

Doing some digging around, I learned that people at CRAIN’S don’t produce the segments; they come from the group hosting the segment.  Still, there is a level of responsibility that comes into play here, and something SMPR takes very seriously:

• In all of our endeavors, we are supposed to fact-check, do our homework and make sure that nothing that we communicate on behalf of our clients could be called into question.  If we do it, our clients are smart enough to know about it–and they will show us the door.
• We have a responsibility and “code of honor” to respect the journalists, analysts and other groups who we work with.
• As PR counselors, we have a responsibility to help our clients tell the truth to all of their constituents and influencers, even it the truth ruffles feathers.

Maybe the folks at CRAIN’S who were provided the video package didn’t know the truth; hopefully, they know about this and will do something about it.  I trust CRAIN’S will do something; that is what good journalists do.

If we were counseling the restaurant company, we would advise them to come forth and acknowledge the relationship, discuss their knowledge of the story being done and (if needed) who was at the root of the video being done–the daughter or the father.

I’ll continue to pick up my CRAIN’S every week and read the daily news digests in my mailbox.  But when it comes to getting objective restaurant reviews, I’ll go somewhere else.

BP should exemplify the need for businesses to have "insurance policies" for their corporate processes.

A few days ago, I was talking with a journalist about my insights of corporate reputations in light of the BP fiasco.

Certainly, there are many people who would subscribe that all it takes is one chink in the armor to knock a company like BP and its people down–and we all know there are people lining up at the door.  Tony Heyward has become corporate America’s latest addition to America’s Most Wanted.  If things weren’t bad enough, Heyward’s attendance at a yacht race has the PR people swimming uphill yet again (uh, Tony, unless your yacht is solar-powered I wouldn’t be going to these sorts of events anytime soon–word to the wise).

Just as we hear about consumers needing insurance policies for when they become disabled or hurt, companies need to think about the types of insurance available to them to protect themselves.  In honor of Heyward’s latest snafu, following are some suggested options for companies to consider when “insuring their safety”:

• “Long-term care”–What happens when a company and/or its employees need to stop work for extended periods of time?  How are internal processes handled such that work disruption is minimized?
• “Whole life insurance”–Companies should offer self-imposed fire drills about how to handle a catastrophe before it happens.  From my vantage point, I am surprised at how much BP is “winging it” as opposed to following an established set of protocols. As a result, they are digging themselves a deeper hole from which to climb.
• “Disability”–A comprehensive review of policies and procedures is in order for any company to protect itself from internal issues which could hamper the company making money in either the short- or long-term.What other types of policies are out there?

Could the "what's old is new again" idea work for BP?

Back in September 2008, I published a post about where I thought this big idea called sustainability was headed.  Green had been pushed way too far, and I had suggested that “green” get a makeover.

I didn’t think that the makeover would come at the expense of a PR disaster such as that which faces BP.  But I had to smile when I saw the following post from the June 15 FAST COMPANY electronic newsletter that cited how badly green has been tarnished.  The author, a noted brand strategist, suggested that BP go back to AMOCO and move away from green toward blue.

While I would love to say that smart minds think alike, it does speak to a bigger issue–how does a company evolve from a crisis with its brand or icon leading the way?

When has a company emerged from a crisis with a new identity?  I am interested in your feedback.

One of the great things about PR is that when you find a company that “gets it,” it makes for an easy time to showcase that client.  In nearly all of those cases, these companies have superior people implementing processes that are DRIVEN by the people who designed them.

It sounds so easy, but people drive processes not only to make them work, but to make them smarter.  People drive innovation.  People look for ways to make systems more efficient and effective.  Perhaps all else, the smartest companies out there continuously look for ways to make both the people and the processes better.  This is the way that SMPR strives to showcase its clients, by looking at all of a company’s value drivers.

Which side is more important for good PR, process or people?

But when an outside company comes in and acquires another company–especially one built on people-based assets such as culture and talent–the equilibrium tends to shift.  Sadly, a former SMPR client (Flat Top Grill) has shifted for the worse.

Let’s be clear here–I am not sharing this information intending to spill “sour grapes” about a former client, let alone a former employer (disclosure–I worked for the company more than 10 years ago).  I am, however, sharing this because this company used to be the epicenter of customer experiences and people management, and it has reached an abyss that is so low that I worry that it will never get out.

I went into lunch at Flat Top Grill’s Loop location because I wanted to see how the company has changed since we stopped working with them.  To be sure, the people who we knew were no longer with the company (not that I expected to see them).  But the product has become so commoditized; what’s worse, the product was so poor, the service was so bad and the people–the very asset we looked to showcase–were so poorly trained and executed that it made me wonder how a company and its culture could sink so fast.

Want proof?

• I had to wait 22 MINUTES for my bowl to be delivered to me (WAY beyond the norm).
• Ingredients are supposed to be mixed together, but in my mouth was the very spoonful of wasabi I spooned in; my mouth was burning hot.
• I would have had water, but my glass wasn’t filled.  I had to run to a bathroom to get water (SERIOUSLY).
• Since when is soy put in beef and chicken?  Oh yeah, as a PRESERVATIVE.  If I wanted soy, I would have asked for tofu.
• As a former Partner (the company’s term for employee), I am entitled a professional courtesy when I dine there; I was asked three different times where I worked, who I was and why I asked for the discount; my bill must have been important to them…
• …but if it was so important, then why did it take all of these people so long to get my bill?  The server’s response–”We’re busy.”  Uh, hello?  Restaurants are SUPPOSED to be busy and you’re supposed to be PREPARED.

Unfortunately, the company has lost touch with the very thing that put the company in growth mode–its people.  Training and systems were tossed aside in favor of processes to save money.  I don’t need to look at their books to know that.  I asked a CEO of a major restaurant group in town what would have happened to his company if any of this had happened.  His response:  “I would be tracking down that customer to get their inputs how we can change things to make things right for him….”

Sadly, I doubt that will happen; Flat Top Grill has lost touch with what was important.  Perhaps one day, they can find what made them successful.