Here’s the essence of Professor Karnani’s case:

“Companies that simply do everything they can to boost profits will end up increasing social welfare. In circumstances in which profits and social welfare are in direct opposition, an appeal to corporate social responsibility will almost always be ineffective, because executives are unlikely to act voluntarily in the public interest and against shareholder interests.”

Here’s the essence of Mr. Edelman’s reply:

“[Edelman's case studies] demonstrate that contrary to Karnani’s assertion, the decision isn’t whether to run an effective, “smart” business or a socially responsible, engaged one. Performance with purpose (a term used by PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi) is not an either/or proposition.”

Now, as it happens, Richard Edelman makes a good point. But he also misses it completely. The core social purpose of a corporation is to provide whatever goods or services it is in business to deliver – be that street cleaning, cigarettes, incubators, medicines, machine guns or bubble gum. Mr Edelman, in contrast, believes that a smart business is an engaged one with a purpose. Engaged in what else other than what it does, I ask.

Mr. Edelman tries to explain it with three examples drawn from his client base:

“Unilever’s Omo Detergent adopted the “Dirt is Good” campaign – aligning with the brand’s business proposition by asserting that “every child has the right” to be a child and get dirty. After fielding new academic research highlighting the importance of outside play for the physical and social development of children and engaging parents, governments and NGOs to take action, the campaign triggered real social change – Vietnamese schools agree to assess national provisions for school recess while the brand commits to build 100 playgrounds over three years.”

He’s shooting himself in the foot. Unilever’s campaign has self-interest at its core. The aim here is to produce more dirty children that will require the use of more of its product to clean up the mess. Moreover, from my experience as a parent, kids don’t need much encouragement to get their clothes dirty or to play outside (try stopping them).

He tells us how the Clorox Brita’s FilterForGood campaign:

“…inspires consumers – and communities – to take a personal pledge and even engage in (planet) healthy competition with others to reduce their bottled-water use, as well as informs them about other environmentally-friendly decisions that each can personally make.”

In essence, he’s positioning his client’s “healthy product” against the bottled water industry’s and mains suppliers’ supposedly environmentally unfriendly or unhealthy alternatives. That is, for as long as Brita remains a client and come the day Edelman represents, say, San Pellegrino, or has to convince us that a utility produces a product fit to drink straight from the tap. This should warn us that the “public interest” Mr. Edelman favours is often just the selfish interests of his clients.

Then, if those two weak cases weren’t enough, he adds:

“The Pepsi Refresh Project, partnering with NGOs and experts, is directly crowd sourcing ideas from consumers to foster innovation in social good – awarding more than $20 million this year to fund local community initiatives and ideas that refresh the world.”

Regardless of the trendy crowd sourcing, that’s just a classic – old-style – brand marketing and awareness-raising campaign. It is, actually, a very low budget one for a company with $9.4 billion in revenues.

One wonders why Mr. Edelman didn’t mention another esteemed client: Ryan Air. It is one which is likely to accuse Professor Karnani of being soft rather than harsh in his defence of profit. Ryan Air states unambiguously that shareholder value comes before its staff, customers, partners and suppliers. Ryan Air has little time for stakeholder PR or for CSR, except as the butt of jokes. Here’s the brief that Edelman pitched for:

“Wanted: PR firm who is able to LOL at the advertising gags, and doesn’t mind poking fun at expensive airports, rivals, prime ministers … and even popes! No precious, sensitive, politically correct or clock-watching publicists need apply. Long hours, stamina and patience of St. Christopher, the patron saint of travel, are all prequisites.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not against corporations acting responsibly or managing their risks properly. I accept Ryan Air is an outlier; though it is one which has moved an entire industry’s behaviour in its direction. It is just that most CSR is shallow dishonest nonsense that sails close to propaganda, as BP’s Beyond Petroleum clearly did.

It is precisely such transparent charades and double-speak that generates the disabling cynicism that undermines public confidence in modern institutions. So there’s something refreshing about Professor Karnani’s bluntness and Ryan Air’s Michael O’Leary’s loud mouth.

Of course, in one sense there’s a bit of voodoo coming from both Mr. Edelman and Professor Karnani. The problem with deciding between profit-first or profit-with-purpose is that they are difficult to separate. Firms live within society and have all kinds of unavoidable obligations to fulfill as they produce profit.

One has to ask some tough questions about Mr. Edelman’s motivation, however. His main concern seems not to be the public good as much as helping firms restore their credibility and by so doing avoid state interference in their affairs. He says:

“We are at a very important moment in the relationship between business and society. The catastrophic economic events of September 2008 undermined the confidence in the private sector’s ability to self-regulate. Bankruptcies of centerpiece companies in the global economy, such as GM, plus reputation issues for leaders in finance (Goldman Sachs), energy (BP) and transport (Toyota) have called into question the values of corporate leaders. In the race for public credibility, it is fortunate for business that its prime regulator, government, is not seen as a worthy replacement as the leader in the dance.”

My beef is not with what Mr. Edelman wants to achieve; a free and mostly self-regulated market place. It is with how he believes that he can win public acceptance for it. I rebel, as do most people who are moderately sceptical of corporate humbug, to his pandering to the more infantile elements of this discussion; you know, the audience who cannot (supposedly) be told the truth because it would destroy their illusions.

So, I’d like to leave you with what I think is an effective demolition of Mr. Edelman’s style of PR, by quoting Professor Karnani’s robust expose of it:

“Executives are hired to maximize profits; that is their responsibility to their company’s shareholders. Even if executives wanted to forgo some profit to benefit society, they could expect to lose their jobs if they tried—and be replaced by managers who would restore profit as the top priority. The movement for corporate social responsibility is in direct opposition, in such cases, to the movement for better corporate governance, which demands that managers fulfill their fiduciary duty to act in the shareholders’ interest or be relieved of their responsibilities. That’s one reason so many companies talk a great deal about social responsibility but do nothing—a tactic known as greenwashing.”

Exactly!

Related posts:

1. Profit and risk need better PR Being socially aware didn’t make Big Pharma innovate. Here’s a...
2. PR should help leaders lead, not listen Here’s a manifesto in favour of decent top-down adult leadership rather...

This view – hidden in the Accords’ small print – is much too close to Stalin’s view of authors as “engineers of human souls” for my liking. So, here’s a call to dump the Accords’ illiberal vision of our profession’s role in society.

Before I justify my words, here’s a short explanation of the flaws that lie at the heart of the Stockholm Accords, which were ratified in Stockholm last week. They want to be touchy-feely but also to talk about “governing” media processes. At the same time, and to make things worse, their talk about “governing” media (social and mainstream) is rather stymied by their admitting that they actually control no more than 10 percent of media outcomes. So the Accords have two conflicting and irreconcilable aims, one of which it is accepted by the Accords’ authors that they cannot fulfill. Yet it’s worse. When discussing their “governing” role, they discuss its “ideological” nature. All in all, they’re using words which are either feebly post modern, modish and relativist or nastily authoritarian.

Maybe a huge amount of meaning has been lost in translation. In English (hardly a minority language for our game) this stuff sounds horrible and is reminiscent of long-settled debates. In any language, these approaches make for a very shaky “new” foundation for PRs to build on as we seek to redefine what our practice and mission is in today’s world.

Here’s the key Accord on the “communicative organistaion” that PRs should focus their concerns on:

“The communicative organization ensures full consistency of its storytelling by balancing global transparency, finite resources and time sensitive demands dealing with fast moving inside/outside changes and new conflicts of interests that emerge from multiple stakeholder participation.

“Communication with internal, boundary and external stakeholders is coherent and coordinated with the organization’s mission, vision, values, as well as its actions and behaviors.”

The Accords’ authors are well aware that their text is gibberish to c-level management, the public and even to most PRs. Hence, Toni Muzi Falconi has provided an accompanying glossary and personal explanation of what the real intent is of each of the Accords. As Toni is a prime mover behind the whole process and his is the only explanation offered on the Accords’ website, it seems sensible to assume he expresses fairly well what’s being said. Here he explains what’s meant by the “communicative organisation”:

“A communicative organization recognizes that even the most empowered public relations director cannot realistically hope to govern more than 10% of its communicative behaviours.

“Therefore the communication leader of the organization plays two fundamentally strategic roles:

°an ‘ideological’ role by supporting and providing the organization’s leadership with the necessary, timely and relevant information which allows it to effectively govern the value networks as well as an intelligent, constant and conscious effort to understand the relevant dynamics of society at large:

°a ‘contextual’ role which implies the constant delivery of communicative skills, competencies and tools to the components of its value networks so that they improve their relationships amongst each other and with the other value networks.”

The problem is that the the notion of PRs playing an “ideological role” comes close to saying PR plays a propagandistic function inside organisations. Moreover, the idea that PR can “govern” behaviour – even if it is only communicative behaviour – has illiberal and worrying undertones. One could argue – and I do – that this explanation of the Accords’  intent reveals an attempt to redefine the role of PRs as “ideological governors of value networks”. That is hardly a description of our role that’s designed to win widespread acceptance or one which could conceivably encourage public trust or confidence in what we communicate. Most likely it is a description that – if ever widely promoted – would see open conversation stop the minute any PR entered a room or joined in a discussion.

Related posts:

1. Stockholm Accords interrogated – part 2 Here’s the second in my trilogy on the Stockholm Accords....
2. Stockholm Accords interrogated – part 1 This is for everyone interested in the Stockholm Accords and the debate...

My profession seems to be obsessing on stakeholder relationship management. I see why. When the angry mob is howling at the gates, it seems sensible to pretend that crowds have wisdom. Like politicians, media and most bosses in the West, PRs are terrified of seeming elitist. They believe that leadership is no longer possible, or is toxic.

I have often banged-on about how PRs fear that corporations are seen as evil, so now mistakenly believe they must wear a bleeding heart on their sleeve. That’s not my point today. I want to stress here that it is a profound problem that PRs and many organisations – from firms to political parties – dread leadership and responsibility.

There’s a shortage of adulthood

What I’m on about today is related to a wider social problem. I think it’s time the grown-ups behaved like adults.

We live in a society in which people strut about in a macho culture of bullying, slap-head, hyper-fit, scowling aggression, but at the slightest set-back everyone’s weeping and in therapy.

Big cars, sharp suits and watches the size of dinner plates don’t confer anything worthwhile on a person. Aren’t you struck by how fragile the self-esteem of so many modern pseudo-adults seems to be?

We have watched stars, CEOs and politicians behave like greedy, petulant, hysterical teenagers rather than heroes, but what is striking about many of them is that they have so little fortitude. Most CEOs disappeared from view when the credit crunch struck. We just heard how the British Prime Minister’s inner circle phones bullying help-lines to complain about him. Their confidence is wafer thin.

At this year’s Davos we were told that profit, shareholder value and shareholders are no longer priorities. All stakeholders are now equal. Such talk came from Western leaders. The bosses in the East held their nerve.

We need corporations rooted in a solid culture

It’s this bifurcation I’m after. I want to try to make it understood that ordinary decency, a workable sense of fairness, a sellable ideal of enlightened self-interest - proper trust between firms and employees and customers and wider society – has to flow from a far deeper sense of corporate culture than can ever be achieved by becoming a weather vane.

Today I want to try to get a proper handle on this particular concern: that our clients cannot afford to aim to become whatever the ether-mob, the gobby bloggers, the placard-wavers fancy. They can’t pick up a self-definition by triangulating the top three or four messages they get from a consultant. Even if they did, they’d have to live it and that involves sticking with it and that involves ignoring the next fashion which hurtles into view out of the mists.

I am tolerably sure that floating along on public opinion is never good. It sometimes leads to rushing weirs and crashing Niagras, but more often to long dreary shoals where no-one’s boat floats.

The public says it wants to humble corporations and corporate bosses, just like it  says it wants to humble political parties and politicians. So it has created the risk that firms, parties and institutions become rudderless (sorry, I couldn’t resist another water analogy).

In fact though, if there’s one thing the public fears and distrusts more than strong, mean, unaccountable and self-serving public bodies and leaders, it’s bodies which are too weak to do their job.

Before we can have listening and flexible firms, we need to have firms which are quite strong and quite clear about what they actually want to be.

So the perpetual self-abnegation involved in stakeholder relationship management is a folly. I believe it is a chronic abdication of responsibility. It is also constitutes a surrender to short-term market and social instrumentalism.

It is a myth that the best reputations must be sustained by stakeholder management crowd sourcing. Good reputations are not based on living within limits set by consumer or voter research and stakeholder engagement, but on breaking down barriers and achieving something significant.

Reputations, trust and success

The best reputations arise from doing things and from keeping promises and delivering results and sometimes from managing failures well. Reputations that endure do so because they inspire.

Great companies and governments transform the world by creating demand and conditions that didn’t exist before. They often do so at great risk in the face of fierce opposition.

There’s more for PR to do than to get their clients to reflect what audiences say they expect or claim that they will accept. There’s more for PR to do than to try to forge consensuses before advising firms to make decisions. Good PR acknowledges that what’s wanted in society is not fixed. Great PR helps society transform the prevailing perceptions of sustainability on business, cultural and environmental matters.

Successful countries from the democratic UK and America to today’s China and India were not built on the back of listening, engagement and consensus, but on the back of courageous leadership and innovation. Let’s review a few examples.

According to Edelman’s trust survey, trust in business and government is strongest where stakeholder relationship management matters least and among the weakest where it seemingly matters most. By a significant margin, China leads the world in both categories. India and Indonesia score highly. While Russia records higher trust levels than do France and Germany.

Moreover, the PC, the internet and Google’s search engine are all examples of top-down disruptive innovations, not ones driven by bottom-up demand-led engagement-based consultation. They did not arise from listening to the market or to stakeholder groups.

Google

Google’s search engine was an innovative marriage between algorithms and computing power. Google created its own demand.

The motto of Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin was “question everything”. As this review of recent books on Google explains, they were like postindustrial Henry Fords, using digital technology to eliminate all inefficiencies in traditional economies.

Ironically, Google’s Eric Schmidt’s recent Washington Post piece, Erasing our Innovation Deficit, advocates bottom up crowd-sourced innovation. It under-estimates the risk-taking top down investment and leadership which helped Google succeed, the internet take-off and the US put a man on the moon: see here. However, that weakness should not detract too much from the mostly timely, insightful points Schmidt makes.

Unloved Microsoft and lovable Apple

Microsoft at its peak never won our empathy. Microsoft never engaged with stakeholders. It hardly consulted anybody. Bill Gates wielded Microsoft’s power like a blunt instrument against all comers, including customers and partners. But if Microsoft was always unlovable, Apple is its polar opposite. Its fans adore it, believing it to represent an anti-corporate, culturally-fresh, arty sort of an entity. That’s mostly nonsense, but in any case Apple achieves this myth-making with top-down communication and command and control management.

Rock ‘n’ Roll

The electric guitar transformed music. It created new possibilities by creating new sounds. It helped spawn Rock ‘n’ Roll, including Punk, that outraged public opinion. But its hall of fame contains some of the greatest reputations of the last century. But as Simon Cowell shows, even this grass-roots business is managed from the top, even if it draws inspiration and talent from the bottom.

Ryanair: nobody’s friend

Last, Michael O’Leary’s Ryan Air’s low-cost digitally-networked business model revolutionised the airline industry. It was an achievement of an aggressive innovative genius, not of stakeholder collaboration, which he despises.

These examples provide evidence of Joseph Schumpeter’s law of creative destruction that drives the capitalist market. They support my argument that PRs who think our trade is all about aligning values, listening, engagement and relationships need a reality check; though I’m very pro using those techniques in the right context.

Key manifesto messages

In contrast, I say PRs should be more prepared to defend, advocate and promote risk taking. They should be less concerned about what’s acceptable and what’s popular. They should be more willing to celebrate elitism and success. They should be less concerned with the crowd as it is currently constituted or inclined to emote and opine.

PRs should be more willing to celebrate the arrogance of the change-makers who bring innovation to society. We should be less concerned with bad headlines and with tyranny of media produced crises. Instead we should focus our campaigns on achieving positive outcomes and on getting things done. We should be the torch bearers honing the narratives and messages of the people and forces which challenge or ignore society’s constraints. In that game PR plays a transformative role.

The blog which got me going

Here’s the article that inspired this manifesto: To listen, to engage: empty buzzwords? Let’s discuss. It sums up the risk adverse stakeholder relationship management approach of mainstream academic PR. According to this school of thought progress depends on winning the public’s trust by establishing empathy. For them it is all about connecting with stakeholders by gathering sense:

“The consequences of the interpretation-of the comprehension-of the gathered sense need to be explicitly related to the listener’s decision making process and are inherently fuzzy, non linear and situational. The competencies are creativity, feasibility, and time framing with their respective tools.”

This piece of gobbledygook is typical of current PR thinking. It springs from a misplaced faith in Grunig’s two-way symmetrical model of PR. Amusingly the author is so sure of his ground that he asks What comes after Grunig? and replies, “the answer to that looming question is that after Grunig…comes Grunig.”

The danger here is that Grunig’s supporters have ended up trying religiously to make reality fit the theory. That’s the trap, if I’m any judge of PR-related text, that the Stockholm Accords, arising from the Global Alliance’s World Public Relations Forum debate, is falling into right now.

In summary, my point is that PR is a multi-faceted, flexible profession. Sometimes it is top-down and one-sided. Sometime it is a two-way interactive real-time force. In whichever way it does its job, however, PR is an objectives-driven art rather than a science that’s reducible to orthodox formulas. My take home message is that PR makes its most useful contribution to society when it advocates transformative risk-taking on which great reputations are built.

Related posts:

1. Let’s interrogate Shell’s CSR in Nigeria Yesterday Shell said it was going to clean up the Niger...
2. Public trust in risk remains strong Financial Times (FT) research suggests that the public trusts itself to...
3. BM’s COO Roman Geiser interviewed When local boy Roman Geiser, Burson-Marsteller’s Swiss CEO, was catapulted...

As somebody who once was accused of organising a race riot in Handsworth, Birmingham, I know something about definitions.

My first defence was to say that if it was organised, it was not a riot. The police perhaps kindly ignored that challenging thought and moved on to my second line, and accepted it: I was attending a conference in London when it happened.

But I digress. Here’s some examples of some crises.

When Edward VIII abdicated from the British throne in 1936 so that he could marry his American lover Wallis Simpson, it created a crisis. It did so because it threatened the nation’s sense of itself and might even have wobbled the UK’s constitution. The credit crunch was a crisis. It threatened to very severely disrupt capitalism by destroying huge amounts of wealth (especially savings) and confidence. Note: what actually happened was very nasty but has so far fallen well short of what was threatened. So it was a crisis and we seem to have got through it.

Those events threatened abrupt or decisive change. They created very real and deep fear. The worst outcomes were seriously in play, and did not materialise.

There are, of course, cases where dramas needlessly become full-blown crises.

For example, there are the cases where people imagine a danger which would be dreadful if it did occur. One was Three Mile Island in 1979. The ironic thing about Three Mile Island was that the worst case scenario core meltdown occurred within the first minutes of the accident. It was such a non-event that nobody noticed, not even the plant’s operators. Meanwhile, the world’s media stood outside the plant for weeks hyping up the “what ifs”. (BTW: Three Mile Island still generates electricity today, just as electricity was generated by Chernobyl’s nuclear reactors until very recently.)

Here’s another twist. Disasters are quite often not crises. That’s to say, a chaos is unleashed, but nothing very much is threatened. When Richard Branson interrupted his holiday to fly to the scene of a Cumbrian train crash in 2007, that was not crisis management, so much as good PR and (for all we know) a compassionate act of a good boss responding to a disaster. Of course, if Branson hadn’t turned up, and was thought callous, that might have produced a drama for Virgin, since one cannot afford nowadays to be invisible at such moments. Even so, it would not have been a crisis.

Interestingly, when it comes to accidents, firms rarely get punished as hard as did Windscale, Value Jet, and Union Carbide, all of which anyway survived their genuine crises. Yet it is at least possible that rebranding a disaster or crisis-hit organisation merely produces a legacy of bad-taste jokes and ill-feeling about slippery PR. That’s to say, there may be a deep understanding among the public that accidents do happen. That understanding can withstand, I maintain, the media approach (and victim reproach) which tend to assume that total safety is available and would have been achieved except for the villainy of firms and governments.

As people speculate about Toyota’s fate, the fact is that there’s never been a major car firm destroyed by a recall or by an accident. Companies destroyed by sudden events are normally in the class of totally corrupt Enron and its grey accomplice Arthur Andersen. In both companies trust collapsed because their skulduggery accurately defined what their brands were about. Their reputations were beyond repair, and quite rightly so.

Then there’s the likes of Ratners. The collapse of that company had more to do with a loss of nerve in response to a gaffe than, arguably, necessity dictated. But Ratners’ experience was another exception that stands out precisely for that reason. If you doubt that, just look at the positive share prices of oil companies today and then review their accident-prone histories.

But let’s stay contemporary here. Toyota’s worldwide recall is not a crisis in the true sense of the term. It is actually a drama focused on a narrow range of issues. The chances are slim that it will become a long-term disaster for Toyota. That’s not to say that slow sales, halted production lines and global recalls of millions of cars is business as usual. It is just to remind us to retain a sense of perspective.

For a start, who’s panicking? Who thinks their Toyota (their car, their share, their job) is really threatened here? Here’s the important thought: we see this storm and we think, “Toyota’s a damn good car-maker and will be an even better one after this”. Maybe a few victims (some half-embarrassed that they panicked instead of finding neutral), with their US lawyers rubbing their hands behind them. But I don’t think anyone seriously believes that Toyota’s existence is threatened by its current problems. Though I imagine that the pressure must be bloody uncomfortable for Toyota’s bosses, and not good for the nerves of Japan’s stock exchange in the midst of recession.

Before we lose our nerve, or tell Toyota to, we should remind ourselves how well Ford survived its tribulations with its “exploding” fuel tanks in the Pinto and Mercury Bobcats (1.5 vehicle recall). It was claimed they killed 27 people. Ford ordered the recall – and did not contest the accusations – because it was more motivated by supposed public perception than by what it knew to be true (The Suicidal Corporation: How Big Business Fails America, by Paul H Weaver, a Touch Stone Book).

So most things labeled as being a crises aren’t any such thing.

We PRs need to consider very carefully whether we should avoid the elephant trap which is laid for us here. We should perhaps develop a determination to avoid reacting to every drama and panic and even disaster as though it were a crisis for our clients. The media, after all, is in the business of making a crisis out of drama, and we all too often risk doing half their work for them.

Heather Yaxley writing on PR Conversations hit the notes well recently. She attacked PR crisis management theorists for their panicky hyper-active overreaction to dramas:

Tell it fast becomes tell it before you know anything.  Tell it all means let the media and its rent-a-quote experts speculate about worst case scenarios.  Be open means unlimited social media engagement (regardless of what the legal or other ramifications may be). Have the CEO (or celebrity if a personal faux pas has occurred) lead communications with mandatory appearances on chatshows, a tour of news stations,  and a YouTube apology.  Mea culpa – the universal panacea: “I’m sorry if…” – anyone resisting the calls is bullied until they comply.  The pound of flesh must be paid.

I fear she rightly roughs me up a little for my recent piece Where was Mr Toyoda yesterday? She certainly compellingly argues that every so-called crisis is different. She adds that too many PRs try to impose commoditized crisis management plans onto unique situations:

It’s a comfort blanket of how to…, what not to do…, common mistakes and miracle cures.

I would add that PRs often corrupt the everyday management of risk in business. The sensible cry from PRs for clients to stay ahead of the game risks turning the commonsense desire to spot problems before they occur into crisis management paranoia.

The result is the creation of a risk-adverse culture which inhibits innovation. That’s a point that is well argued in Paul H. Weaver’s The Suicidal Corporation. It is why I’m recommending people read it. The creation of a risk-adverse culture helps spread indecision and insecurity. During media hurricanes it becomes a sort of PR own goal. In other words, making decisions under under pressure calls for risk-taking, but risk-taking like winning and losing is habit forming.

The truth is that people admire and respect risk-takers and they make allowances for their failures. Moreover, unpopularity in the media is just as temporary and superficial as popularity. Bad headlines don’t destroy good reputations, no more than positive ones make them. Good reputations are based on innovation, delivery on promises and a certain arrogance based on success. They are sustained by people’s experience of the brand  (El Buli, Ryanair, Apple, Toyota and much more).

Hence, rather than becoming hyper-active advocates of risk-aversion, PRs should instead do more to inspire courage and balls into the mindset of their clients. PRs could do much more to push back on media and other agendas and to help their clients ride out the storms they face with their integrity intact.

The reassuring lesson from most Toyota-type troubles is that consumers are as quick to forgive as they are to condemn. So I’ll risk a prediction. There’s every chance, as Insigna’s Jonathan Hemus says here in The Guardian, that Toyota will come out of its storm with its reputation enhanced (though his advice is too skewed toward institutionalized risk aversion for my liking).

So a crisis is a crisis when it threatens the viability of something or other. Otherwise it doesn’t qualify. The job of PRs is to make sure situations never do qualify or to clear up the mess if the you know what hits the fan.

Oh, I never did advocate that people riot, dread the thought. But I do own up to having been a revolutionary, which is something completely different.

Related posts:

1. Where was Mr Toyoda yesterday? Made public yesterday, the last words from a family of...
2. Risk free energy? Boycott BP? No way! At the Senate hearing into the Gulf of Mexico oil...
3. Ready for the real PR revolution? I’m captivated by the provocative headlines on Paul Holmes’s PR blog....

This year’s World Economic Forum in Davos was very downbeat. Still, even as profits are becoming difficult to make, we are still (Davos-style) asked to believe they’re not that important anyway.

To take one important example, Edelman’s trust survey reports that respondents rated financial returns at or near the bottom of their priority list in nearly all of the world’s major economic regions. Business, it seems, should be more concerned with wider social issues and causes that are not necessarily connected to its core purpose.

What’s this? False consciousness? Cognitive dissonance? Denial?

As Sandra MacLeod puts it – in an interesting piece here on sustainability and CR – the aha factor was “we can do well by doing good.” She makes some good points about CR, but they’re not ones that will help companies finance innovation.

Meanwhile, business leaders Twitterd from Davos things like “we have to change the success measurement system beyond just money and share price” if we are to rebuild trust.

Few business leaders at Davos felt confident enough to question the notion that shareholders and profit don’t matter most. Few argued that one big problem is that there’s too much waffle. It was almost taken for granted that all stakeholders are now equals.

So, I welcomed the robust counter view in The Times today from Jonathan Waxman, Professor of Oncology at Imperial College London. He makes a compelling case in defence of the importance of the bottom line. He highlights how much harm to the greater good can be done when the profit motive is undermined:

Today it is unusual to see people die in the industrialised world from diphtheria or pneumonia, and we are at the edge of developing effective therapies for Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes.

But where do these marvellous advances originate from? Not, as you might imagine, from the golden glades of the University of Arcadia. The universities have elaborated hypotheses and elucidated mechanisms, but it is the profit motive and the market that have been responsible for these life-improving changes. Big Pharma, that boggle-eyed devil in the undergrowth, has brought forward virtually all the drugs that make our lives liveable.

He points out how the bureaucratization of risk management by over-regulation strikes at the bottom line and sidelines R&D. This is no small matter.

SmithGlaxoKline is axing 6000 staff, mostly from its R&D departments, and AstraZeneca is cutting 8000 more, while Pfizer its slashing its R&D budget from an equivalent of around $11 billion today to around $8 billion and $8.5 billion by 2012. As Waxman says:

The bottom line does matter to the drug industry — and Britain has created a regulatory environment that makes it harder for them to make money and produce the drugs that we depend upon.

He calls for an overhaul of the regulatory system. I concur. I would add that in the interest of the greater good we need to overhaul our attitude to profit, and the bottom line, and to rehabilitate its importance in the public mind. That’s a pressing PR challenge.

No related pages.

The report explored Wikileaks’ claim to speak truth to power by pulling down the controlling, secretive barriers the establishment erects to protect itself. Wikileaks uses zillions of ISPs to bounce leaks from whistle-blowers around the world leaving no way of tracing the originators.

This insurgent, trendy phenomenon has some impressive backers in the media world who endorse the idea that it’s good to leak. These include AP, the Los Angeles Times and The National Newspaper Association, according to Wikileaks.

Perhaps they’re seeking novel ways to do investigative journalism in the face of cutbacks in budgets; a case of old media seeking new lifelines through new media. According to The National, “Wikileaks has probably produced more scoops in its short life than the Washington Post has in the past 30 years.”

Wikileaks (ominously, in my view) is currently behind attempts to introduce legislation in Iceland to turn the island into an offshore “Switzerland of bits“, a safe haven for digital leaks. They’ve positioned it tantalizingly as a potential new business model for the bankrupt country.

Let’s unpick this and begin with the question: whatever happened to trust?

Is every leak a blow on a whistle that can justify itself in the public interest? Aren’t we supposed to want more trust in society? Does that exclude firms and official bodies hoping to trust their employees? How should we balance the tension between trust and the right to whistle-blow?

Well, as somebody who thinks that trust is vital to the functioning of a healthy society, I think the balance has to weigh – even positively favour - the right of institutions and individuals to keep things private, secret and confidential over the right of others to leak.

We have to trust that one another’s rights are going to be protected or we will destroy the bonds that make society function pleasantly and decently, not to say ethically and legally. Transparency has its place, but so does opacity. Reputations have a right to protection against defamation and they have the right to the benefit of the doubt when attacked, just as private property does.

We all have public, private and sometimes very separate other lives which would collapse like a house of cards if they were made transparent. Hence, the restraining arm of the law has a valuable role to play when it comes to protecting our collective freedoms.

That’s why as PR I have recently been on the side of gagging orders on behalf of John Terry, Tiger Woods, Trafigura and the British National Party membership list.

Very often, I have been glad that these issues are under the control of the courts, and very often I’ve found that the careful balancing of peoples’ competing human rights (to privacy, to free speech) are more sound than some giddy free-for-all masquerading as a crusade against censorship or for open-ness.

However, I accept it is a moot point whether the US justice system handles such matters better than does, say, the UK. But, whatever, I’m against a truly free press, just as I’m for democracy precisely because as well as protecting our freedoms, it limits them.

The UK Cabinet and any other organisation have a right to keep some things under wraps. They also have a right to expect that people they hire in any capacity will feel obliged not to betray them.

As a PR I know that the most embarrassing part of most crises is the behind-the-scenes highly-strung incompetence, panic and failure of leadership under pressure. My colleagues and I have always mediated that nonsense: that’s our job.

In a crisis the role of PRs is to keep the focus on the real issues the outside world cares about. Mostly, PRs put out fires which have little fuel but which generate lots of heat. But if ever we leak the detail of the inside insecurities we witness, the outcome becomes far worse than the original crisis warrants.

For instance, the problem at Three Mile Island was the stream of conscious transparency that the operators presented to the world as they grappled to grasp what had gone on inside their malfunctioning reactor. That was the very opposite of a cover up.

So it is no wonder, then, that governments want and should have the right to keep much of their inner workings secret. The same should go for companies and individuals. Moreover, at the heart of any profession is a lack of transparency – call it client confidentiality – which makes them honourable and trustworthy. Lots of people can do good, but not if what they say is leaked. As a list of such types, let’s begin with PRs, lawyers, priests, doctors, consultants and therapists. I don’t mean that every confidence accepted by every one of those is of equal importance and equally inviolate. I mean that very often what these people know is useful because it’s private.

That’s why Wikileaks is bad news. It is why I am pleased that it is currently so short of funds that it cannot function properly. And it is why I think that it would be in society’s interest to curb the power and effectiveness of this new threat.

At the end of the day, society has more right to keep its secrets secret, than does Wikileaks have a right to wreak havoc, and to keep its sources hidden while doing so.

Related posts:

1. Stockholm Accords interrogated – part 2 Here’s the second in my trilogy on the Stockholm Accords....
2. Time to reappraise Facebook I had thought that Facebook would go the way of...
3. How organisations can survive the Tweet-sphere Manchester United and Manchester City have advised their players against...

In the past footballers, like most employees, were not allowed to issue press releases, but Twitter and Facebook can easily amount to doing just that. Their bosses are nervous, and rightly so. Footballers are, after all, mostly only of interest because of their association with the game and a particular club. So every public utterance they make and the way they behave becomes of concern to the football companies.

The same goes for the likes of Kate Moss, Tiger Woods as representatives of their sponsors - just as it does for Jonathan Ross and John Humphrys as voices of their employer, the BBC. (With Ross the thing is complicated by his being not merely a freelance, but also a corporate sub-contractor.)

However, there’s distinction between Tweeting as an individual and Tweeting as someone who is clearly identified with an entity. The question is maybe this: should entities allow their members to Tweet about the entity but not about the wider world. Or is it, weirdly, vice versa?

Well, one wonders whether the wannabe editor of The Independent Rod Liddle now regrets writing on Millwall Online fan site that it was:

“Fcking outrageous that you can’t smoke in Auschwitz. I had to sneak round the back of the gas chambers for a crafty snout. Also, I wasn’t convinced by the newish Auschwitz Burger Bar and Grill.”

I’m sure that Amanda Knox wishes she’d never been described as Foxy Knoxy on a social media site, and then gone on to build on that reputation, if only for fun.

Perhaps that explains why one of the fastest-growing social media services is www.suicidemachine.org, which allows you to watch as your online history and friendships are shredded.

The reality is dawning, I believe, that the web is not a place to abandon inhibition. It is a place that should be engaged with confidence, but with the knowledge that everything is public, transparent and potentially damaging. Indeed, the new media have not overthrown (actually they have reinforced) old wisdom about reserve and caution.

Firms need to be able to say that they have a right to expect loyalty, up to a point. Individuals have a right to assert that they have a right to “voice”, up to a point. How can we get too cross when we find even footballers want to be articulate?

Well, one moderating influence might be for organisations to caution their staff that they’ll have to live with what they say: Tweets are horribly permanent. Best to be sensible, then.

Frankly, I suspect that organisations and their PRs will approach these issues very variously.

The best hope may be not to control what your people say so much as to get them to make it clear when they are speaking as individuals and when as representatives of the corporation. Indeed, an organisation should at least insist that their employees make it clear when they are not being “official”.

That’s one reason why, in contrast to the likes of Neville Hobson, I argue that corporate utterance is collegiate, not personal. If anyone wants the corporate view, they’ll need to log-in and get the official line or stick in the SM world but listen to people licensed and badged as corporate. The individual can say “I”, but only the PR or the manager can say “we”.

It’s easy – perhaps too easy – for some organisations to claim security is a problem. For instance, the US Marine Corps has banned all social media usage on its networks for security reasons, while allowing soldiers to continue to use them at home. I can’t judge the merit of the decision of the brass, but I recognise that firms are often paranoid about criticism and may attempt to silence their employees under a cloak of commercial confidentiality. The tension here is natural and sometimes healthy, as it was with Pfizer’s whistle-blowing saga.

An assessment of risk should determine the degree to which individuals are left free to exercise their judgment when it comes to using social media, or whether they will be restrained by bans on this or that topic or using this or that channel.

The case for corporate censorship is particularly strong in instances in which the distinction between “we” and “I” is difficult to separate in the public mind, and when the “I” helps calibrate the brand’s value. But censorship, whether corporate or self, will often make sense.

There are some big general points to make.

1. Companies never really could control what people said about them, and certainly can’t now. But for as long as they’re being talked about (bigged-up, dissed, or whatever) at least they are the subject of interest, and what they say is of interest. They’ve just got to be better and better at their end.

2. But to do so they need to be more strategic and approach messages from an evidence-based, grown-up, real-world position to win or retain credibility. They need to tie communication to business goals online and offline, and that requires a strong strategy backed by clear tactics in the face of chaos.

3. So with social media just like old media, if you are not proactive you let someone else define your brand, which was always the case, but only more so with SM etc.

The refractions, perceptions, versions and channels through which the world perceives you are as various as there are people looking and talking about you, and are growing all the time. Whilst you – the entity – can’t be static and rock-like, you should at least aim to be considered, serious, adult and stable. That’s surely the best way to earn respect and see off  – or even gradually respond to – the gales of opinion and gossip swirling around.

The trick for PRs is to anchor our communication in a solid reality and to get the message out to wherever audiences are. (But that shouldn’t stop us being adult just because we’re speaking with young people on our employer’s behalf.)

Everything else will come out in the wash.

Hence, the less we as PRs can control the perceptions of employees or customers on SM, or anywhere else, the more we’d better be good at managing and communicating the underlying realities to a wider audience. As ever, our messages need to be heard by as many of the disinterested or the uninterested as possible. All the people who aren’t talking (or even thinking) about our employers or clients matter as much as the tiny number who are making their life bloody.

Related posts:

1. Blowing the whistle on Wikileaks Warning: this post is counter-revolutionary. A recent BBC’s Culture Show...
2. Obama doesn’t Tweet. Does it matter? Barack Obama has 2.6 million followers on Twitter and follows...
3. Message to Nestlé – stay corporate on SM Greenpeace has forced a tantrum out of Nestlé. Under pressure...

In front of the public, the union now stands embarrassed and apologetic about its threatening behaviour at Xmas.

In front of its members, the union is demoralizing its most ardent activists, and it is reminding their less militant colleagues how head-strong and damaging were the tactics the union first pursued.

In front of BA’s management, the union’s dilemma is crystal clear. BA’s cabin crews’ mood is becoming by the day more realistic and resigned as the union loses its grip on its own members and events.

Of course, all this will help secure a negotiated settlement, or it will lead the union into taking industrial action that lacks the punch to do anything more than lead the cabin crew to defeat because the strike lacks both conviction and support.

The one lesson that PRs need to take note of – which I’m afraid is not yet on most of our radars – is that BA created its own monster. BA put its cabin crew at the centre of its PR, marketing and brand ambassadorial promotion to the world. BA cabin crew were heralded as the key component of what made BA “the world’s favourite airline”.

But the BA experience – and the alternative methods employed by the likes of Ryanair – should modify the thoughts of trendy PRs who think they have some new magic via internal comms to use employees as a PR stage army on the employers’ behalf.

As I said last year about the BA affair, BA cabin crew believed their own PR and then got angry when they realised that their needs were secondary to the survival of the mother ship. The reality was that their “unhappiness and discontent” didn’t really matter much to the company or to the public.

Over the years, the cabin crew had not much changed but perception of them had. They’d lost the gloss of being big sisters in the sky. They had gone from being slightly bossy friends to dreary smug over-paid self-seekers. Maybe that was BA’s mistake. They patronised us for years and encouraged their staff to be agents of the airline’s superiority. Wasn’t this after all, Bomber Command with trolly dollies? Neither the airline nor their staff nor their union noticed that one of the Ryanair effects was to make flying more like coach travel.

Related posts:

1. BA and its union caught in their own traps Unite trade union leaders representing BA cabin crew are yelling that...
2. Why hate Ryanair’s PR? Disclosure: I’ve never flown Ryanair. So I might be speaking...

At the moment we a have a theatrical clash of positions. It goes something like this. The Finnish reactor currently being built – which is an example of the type the UK hopes to build – is already three years behind schedule and 3bn euros (£2.71bn) over budget. So what hope a UK nuclear programme being timely or affordable? Ah, responds the UK’s Nuclear Industry Association (NIA):

“The industry is confident that we can have the first new stations operating in the UK by the end of 2017. The UK’s innovative approach of full design assessment prior to any construction means that we will avoid many of the delays which can be seen elsewhere in the world”.

Then up pops the British regulator, Kevin Allars of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) to say he’s every bit as tough as his colleagues in Finland (not that he’s saying regulatory success equals delay) and, just to prove his point, agrees there’s never been a reactor built to time or budget in the UK.

The truth is that neither the regulator nor the industry has a helpful position. Neither does anything to enhance the reputation of the industry or to advance its case in the public domain. Rather they do much to knock the industry’s credibility and to bewilder the public. So how do we move things along?

The real debate should begin with why we need nuclear energy in the first place. At the top of nearly everyone’s list right now is fighting global warming (see UK Energy Secretary’s Ed Milliband’s recent national policy review statement). I fear this is the argument grabbed by industry’s PRs. It’s a dead end.

That’s not because global warming isn’t happening. It is not even because those most worried about AGW (anthropogenic global warming) are often those most opposed to to nuclear power. Nor is it because all ten sites identified in the UK face worries about GW-driven coastal erosion, rising seas, warming cooling water and storms. No, it runs deeper than that.

The trouble is that if dealing with climate change is ever taken seriously enough to panic, the major response is likely to be to aim seriously to reduce electricity demand. Bang would go the major benefit of nuclear energy. It is, after all, a virtually limitless secure energy supply source which boosts output and satisfies demand.

If AGW is taken seriously, the argument for an expensive and tricky source of energy would be commensurately somewhere between very weak and politically unfeasible.

Nukes don’t fit well into a no-growth-to-low energy low carbon unambitious world. But that’s what the EU is committed to right now (European Commission, Energy Policy for Europe, 10 January 2007, p5). It is an outlook that fits quite well with Greenpeace’s view:

“Gordon Brown very recently committed the UK to generating around 40 per cent of our electricity from renewables by 2020. If he means it, Britain could become a world leader in clean energy and his case for nuclear evaporates.”

So it does. Moreover, Greenpeace also rightly points out that nuclear power can only deliver a 4 per cent cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025 (though I’d hope by 2021). That said, it begs the question why Greenpeace gets het-up over building a few new coal plants today, which must be equally as insignificant in percentage terms (a case of one smart argument undermining a dumb one, I think).

Then there’s the energy gap argument. There certainly is a real threat that the UK’s lights could go out at sometime in the not-so distant future. But is virtually impossible to say when, or under what circumstances this would happen. There are too many variables for that.

For instance, old conventional plant can be made to worker longer than its original planned life. There’s an emerging world network of gas pipelines (and no it is not all about Russia), not to mention liquefied natural gas. Then there are renewables coming on stream, and there’s innovation. And when push comes to shove, as demand exceeds supply, rises in price could be used to dampen demand.

I don’t know what carbon price would seriously dent demand, but I suspect it would dent demand somewhat before it would encourage nuclear power.

Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of New College, has captured well how events continually alter the energy landscape in unexpected ways:

“Though the recession has brought a breathing space on the demand side of the equation, it has markedly worsened investment on the supply side. The credit crisis has made it harder and more expensive to finance investment; just when the investment is needed, finance has dried up.”

So how do I size up the debate and advise the nuclear industry to position itself? Well I think its case might go something like this. Britain is in recession, the world is in recession. The Far East is currently getting the edge on the West and it is doing so by not skimping on energy growth when it comes to coal or nuclear power.

The Tories might talk about a new age of austerity but if they want to hold out hope or hold on to power they had better have something more upbeat to offer. That can only be the prospect of economic growth – that requires investment in energy infrastructure and generation on an increasing scale. That supply will need to be secure, on tap on demand (unlike wind) and at a predictable price.

That all speaks to nuclear power strengths. In short, nuclear’s future may be rosy because AGW is not taken seriously, electricity demand is not seriously limited, and there are fears of a serious energy gap especially if it’s decided that AGW matters, but not enough to drive serious (demand-denting) policy.

So who cares if the first couple of UK new nuclear power stations are a little late, over budget and more difficult to build than predicted? That’s life when it comes to making visions come true when it comes to major infrastructure investment. It’s no big deal. For sure, as we build nuclear plants en masse the economies of scale will accrue.

But there’ll be no nuclear revival of significance or true merit so long as the debate remains stuck where it is. It is time to ramp up the nuclear message and link it to economic growth, security, prosperity and hope (a point made well by the authors of Energise! here). It is time to assume that we want a great deal of electricity and at moderate prices (prices only slightly ramped up by carbon taxes) and preferably with an acceptable carbon footprint.

This argument would be gung-ho, cynical, sceptical, realistic. It would be upbeat. Oh dear, what a tough authentic sell.

For the record, I spent almost ten years working in the nuclear industry in the UK, Ukraine and Switzerland, including for the Nuclear Industry Association.

No related pages.

I do agree that “Apologise, Reform, Move on” works, case by case, and is often better than any alternative when the heat is on. But I think it is bad for society, so I think it is almost a selfish response.

I think Heather is wrong to imply or suggest that “Apologise, Reform, Move on” (ARM, henceforth) is socially valuable because it brings firms into a better relationship with society by inviting them to take responsibility (even though they may not be the villain in the story).

The main and over-arching reason is that ARM is dishonest. It is also patronizing and condescending. I think that its motives are difficult to disguise and that actually it generates mistrust and insecurity in personal and corporate relations. I don’t want the truth to die because PR finds it more convenient to fudge things, and hard to tell it as it is.

Here’s why I think as I do:

(1) ARM invites firms falsely to portray themselves as villains (think Shell and Brent Spar).
(2) ARM invites firms falsely to assert that they can manage their affairs in ways which don’t cause pain.
(3) ARM invites firms to dissemble (after all, it is untruthful to say you accept blame when actually you don’t).
(4) If France’s culture makes people suicide-prone, does it help society to head off blaming FT?
(5) ARM creates moral hazard: campaigners know they can make false accusations and make their targets pay.
(6) CSR and CR are empty shells, inviting contempt, unless they speak to business realities (think about the moral crusade against banks and what it will actually take – and what we shall have to accept – to get them working properly again; and think public sector cuts).

More generally, I agree with Frank Furedi and Anthony Daniels that there is a problem with modern individualism: it makes people nurture their vulnerability, and especially their being victims of capitalism, when in fact they are more likely victims of emotionalism, nonsense and downright deception (we say we care about your inner-self, when we don’t).

But yes, ARM works, and it corrodes. It buys firms breathing space in a crisis. It also breeds an underlying unease among the public(s) about motives and gnaws at the self-confidence of the very firms which practice it.

I also think that PR’s promotion of ARM explains why the trade has such a low standing among both the public and its clients.

It is time to break ARMs. It is time to put a more robust-style of communication at the heart of public life.

Though without wanting to appear soft, I’d back Heather’s call to involve the Samaritans in FT’s affairs. After all, they’re better qualified for the job of preventing suicides than FT, and they don’t do therapy, which is why they are trusted. And it’s all good telecoms-based stuff.

Related posts:

1. France Telecom: avoiding suicide? France Telecom has been getting unwelcome attention. It stands accused...
2. Let’s interrogate Shell’s CSR in Nigeria Yesterday Shell said it was going to clean up the Niger...
3. PR should help leaders lead, not listen Here’s a manifesto in favour of decent top-down adult leadership rather...