In anticipation of getting a new iPad2 I migrated my MobileMe over to iCloud. It’s hard to have a definitive idea of what a new service is going to do until you get your hands on it in earnest, but I had read about iCloud, asked some Apple types who knew more than I did about it, and felt like I had a fair idea that it was going to help me solve some problems I’ve been dealing with in the course of managing the logistics of my business.

I was wrong. Mostly, anyway. I knew I was in trouble when the guy at the Apple Store told me do not migrate, sweet gods, for the sake of all that’s sacred do not migrate!! Okay, that’s not exactly how he put it, and I won’t repeat the words he actually did use (which weren’t much much better), but suffice it to say that staff was finding iCloud to be “suboptimal.” I explained that unfortunately I had already moved over. He sighed, then said he’d heard there might be a way of moving back but he wasn’t sure. After some Googling last night, I’m sad to report that if there is a reverse-migration path I can’t find it. But I’m still a relative Mac novice, so maybe I’m just missing something.

In any case, I’m not 100% in love with iCloud. A brief cruise through some Mac user forums last night suggests I’m not the only one, although: a) people do seem to be slowly getting the hang of it, b) I’m not seeing people with my exact complaint, and c) in fairness, I’m getting a better sense for how to use the new service as I wrestle with it more today.

Still, iCloud is a long way from what it could have and should have been. Here’s what I was hoping for:

• Full-spectrum automated online backup, a la a Mozy or Dropbox type service…
• …driven (logically) by Time Machine.
• Integration for all my devices so that I can reach into the cloud, grab what I need, whenever, wherever, then save it back, seamlessly, etc.

Honestly, this vision seems like it would be easy enough for Apple to produce, doesn’t it? All the pieces already exist, it’s just a question of putting them together. You could have tiered data levels (first 5G free, scaling up to 100G or more for $75-100 a year, which is more than Mozy, but a price I’d gleefully pay for that sort of integration). I’m not an engineer, but this doesn’t strike me as the sort of task that a company like Apple would have any trouble pulling off.

With luck, the folks in Cupertino are thinking along the same lines and the issue isn’t that they aren’t going to give me my dream cloud, just that they aren’t there yet.

Fingers crossed. In the meantime, I’m underwhelmed, which isn’t how I’m used to feeling regarding new Apple rollouts.

Great question. Since I’m all in favor of young Deacons taking the world by storm, I thought I’d try to contribute some advice. Here’s a slightly buffed out version of what I wrote.

1: Develop communications skills. Especially the ability to write clearly and flawlessly. The erosion of writing skills over the past 20 years has been dramatic, and a student who can demonstrate this ability has a huge advantage over the competition. A warning, though. When you show us a writing sample, it needs to reflect what you can do, on your own, right now. Too many new grads will present a prospective employer with a sample that’s just gorgeous, but when they’re assigned to write something on day one in their new job it’s clear that the sample was the result of a painstaking semester-long process involving editors, professors and talented friends. In fact, the new hire isn’t prepared to contribute on one of the job’s important criteria.

It’s like showing up for a Match.com date and realizing that your date’s profile picture was one part photo and two parts Photoshop. The reality isn’t what it needs to be and you now know there’s no hope of ever trusting them. It’s bait-and-switch and depending on a variety of factors I might fire you on the spot.

Also – and this applies mostly to women (although not exclusively) – speak like a professional adult. Way too many young women have adopted what we call “upspeaking” (or, more technically, the “high rising terminal”), an inflection pattern that sounds like there’s a question mark at the end of each sentence. What this communicates to the listener is that you have no idea what you’re talking about or that you have no faith in your own judgment.

Listen to accomplished professionals speak. They say “we need to increase our direct marketing spend,” not “we need to increase our direct marketing spend?”

In sum, I’m not going to take you seriously if you don’t.

2: Show me that you understand the difference between earning something and being entitled to it. The Millennial Generation has cultivated a reputation as the Entitled Generation, and while it’s the fault of the parents who raised them and the educational system that failed them at every turn, not their own, they’re still the ones who have to deal with it.

When you graduate from college understand that you’re entitled to nothing but a diploma and you have earned nothing but an opportunity. Those of us who have worked our asses off in our careers will respect that attitude, I promise you.

3: Work on your critical thinking. Another thing Millennials have to confront is that while they’re exceptional in teams and are very good at executing on clearly defined tasks, they come from an educational paradigm that has placed almost no emphasis on the ability to think critically or solve problems. When they encounter a situation they haven’t seen before, they tend to “go limp.” However, if I can hit you with a brand new challenge and you can think your way through to a working solution, you’re going to get lots and lots of opportunities to shine.

Sadly, this one is easier said than done. Effective critical thinking is something that takes a long time to get really good at and it evolves in three stages: 1) something you do; 2) something you are; 3) something you can’t stop doing. You won’t reach stage 3 quickly no matter how hard you work, but if you show up for an interview in stage 1 you’ll help yourself immensely.

4: Cultivate resourcefulness. Once upon a time, back in the good old days, we had these things called “budgets.” A budget, for those of you who have never seen one, is this pile of money that can be used to run operations, hire talent and solve problems.

These days, even people at my level (heck, especially people at my level) are asked to do more and more with less and less. Somedays it feels like we’re expected to do everything with nothing. “Here, here’s a piece of string. Can you dominate a mature, commodified market by end of day?”

Anything you can do to demonstrate a faculty for achieving top shelf results with very little in the way of monetary resources is one that will set you apart in a hurry. The good news here is that you’ve probably been involved in student organizations, and these groups rarely have a lot of money to work with. So your undergrad experience may provide you with quantifiable proof points that will impress a hiring manager.

5: Understand the big picture. At the entry level we’re asked to do small tasks and they may not always make sense to us. But somewhere, hopefully, there is a guiding strategy that provides a context for everything an organization does. Or most of it. Some of it, anyway. Anyhow, your ability to succeed at the entry level and to progress up the career ladder will be helped immensely if you’re able to understand the organization’s overarching strategic goals and where the work you’re doing in the trenches fits in.

People who can do this become leaders. Those who are more at home focusing on tactical executions are going to spend their lives in middle management. This is fine if it’s what you want - and a company with weak mid-management is in dire trouble no matter what - but if you want to lead at a high level, work on understanding the big picture and the long term. (By the way, good middle managers have some strategic grasp, too, so your ability to succeed at this level will require you to understand as much about business drivers as possible.)

This isn’t a comprehensive guide to success, by any stretch. But a recent grad who’s smart, works hard and gets these five concepts will have a big leg up in the interview process and will likely outperform his or her entry-level colleagues.

Best of luck, even if you didn’t go to Wake.

Yesterday I offered some thoughts on the sociopathic nature of some public relations agencies. Once we learn that American firms are lipsticking brutal despots and states that support terrorism it’s legitimate to wonder if there is anyone on Earth that they wouldn’t represent. I just heard a story this morning about a flak who went so far as to take on the remnants of the Khmer Rouge. So if Syria, Libya, Bahrain and the most notorious purveyors of genocide since World War 2 aren’t out of bounds, you have to figure somebody in the industry would gladly sign up Kim Jong-Il, Hitler, Stalin and the Khan boys (Genghis and Agha) for the right amount of money.

Granted, these are extreme cases. I might have qualms about a firm that tries to pretty up a corporation with some anti-social political beliefs, but no, I don’t confuse Dillard’s with Pol Pot. Still, the whole issue does raise some interesting questions. Are there interests that should be shunned by all PR firms from now until the end of time? Can bad actors be redeemed? How can we tell the difference and how should we approach the possibility of representing a distressed brand (such as BP, or Rupert Murdoch, or perhaps an anti-democracy government entity)?

The answers: yes, yes, and read on.

The first thing to understand is that your brand is on the line. And while successes can be quite specific, disasters generalize. For instance, say you sign on to represent the local charitable outreach division of Acme Widgets. And you do a great job, promoting all kinds of positive programs that benefit the communities Acme serves. Then it’s revealed that Acme execs knowingly covered up data demonstrating that their next-generation widget technology causes pregnant women to miscarry. You may have some nice pictures from that Boys & Girls Club opening in Peoria, but what people are going to remember is the dead babies, which are hanging around your neck like so many albatrosses even though you never got anywhere near the company’s product promotion business. Seriously, do you think my mind will ever be able to unhitch Brown Lloyd James from the massacres in Hama?

We all know it, but let’s say it again: reputations can take years to create and seconds to destroy. This goes for your clients, and it goes for your firm’s brand, too. I’m not saying that you should only cherry pick the easiest and least challenged clients (I mean, I love a challenge and I’m idealistic enough to believe that I can effect change, given the chance), but I am saying – as I have suggested before – that I don’t think every client out there deserves professional representation.

Where do I draw the line? Well, genocidal governments are out, as are dictatorships that turn their armies on their own citizens. This seems too obvious to even need saying, but apparently it isn’t obvious to everyone. But that’s hardly a useful standard. What about Target? BP? Dillard’s? News Corp? Would I take them on as clients? How about Tiger Woods? Charlie Sheen? Anthony Weiner? The government of Saudi Arabia?

In some cases, maybe. But I’d make that decision according to a set of rigorous criteria, and I wouldn’t be even a little flexible on any of them. (A number of these are probably different ways of getting at the same core issue, but for evaluation purposes it’s helpful to call them out separately.) So here we go:

Six Criteria for Deciding Whether or Not to Represent a Distressed Brand

1: Has the potential client acknowledged wrongdoing?

Distressed brands are distressed for a reason. Whether it’s a government that has oppressed its dissidents or a corporation that got in hot water for lending support to political organizations that discriminate against the basic human and civil rights of American citizens, the first step to solving the problem is admitting that you have one.

If you take on a client that has not been forthcoming about its past mistakes, then you simply cannot be a part of a solution – you can’t help fix a problem that the client won’t admit it has. In this situation, you’re nothing more than a whitewasher. Here’s your pig and your makeup kit, and the better a job you do, the more you prevent real, productive change. You’re an enabler and a collaborator and when it all goes to hell – and it will – your reputation is going down with the ship, too.

2: Has the crime been paid for?

Perhaps the transgressions of the past were of a legal nature, or maybe they were merely socially repugnant. In any case, penance is required and the punishment must fit the crime. If a senior exec broke the law, then that exec must pay a penalty that the public will regard as just (because the public is the final arbiter of brand and image). So if there were financial shenanigans that destroyed the pensions of thousands of workers, for instance, and the guilty parties lawyered their way into a light fine and skated away, you need to walk. There’s just no way you can win.

In the case of Target, which donated $150K to an anti-gay organization, a move that directly contravened the company’s established community engagement program, you’d need to see a very public apology (by the person who made the decision) and repudiation of both the donation and the recipient organization. You should probably ask for the money back in a very public fashion. You need to see a sizable donation to an entity representing the offended constituency. And a self-imposed suspension (without pay) wouldn’t hurt, either.

If a potential client is unwilling to face the music, you have every reason to doubt its sincerity (as will the public that you’re trying to convince).

3: Are the culprits gone (or sufficiently chastened)?

A logical follow-on to #2, and again, the punishment has to fit the crime. If the head of the secret police who supervised the death squads still holds an official position, then we might suspect the government’s commitment to democratic reform. In a case that extreme, if he isn’t in prison for life or hiding in exile, we know what we need to know.

In a corporate environment (because let’s face it, not many people reading this are going to be working with murderous dictatorships) the question is what action is necessary to indicate the organization is serious about repairing its operation and image and, also, what type of action would key audiences accept as authentic?

4: Is there tangible evidence that things have changed?

Beyond atonement and accounting for specific individuals, how can you (or a member of the public) tell that the potential client is serious about setting the ship aright? Have there been meaningful changes to processes, procedures and programs? Could what happened before happen again? Do people within the organization behave in ways that are empirically different than they did before?

In other words, if you say “they’ve changed” and I say “prove it,” how will you respond? If you’re struggling with the answer, that probably means the entity isn’t there yet.

5: Are you a full partner in the strategic decision making process?

Some organizations treat their PR counselors as partners. They’re in the room, actively involved in the discussions as important decisions are deliberated and made. They are presumed to have insight beyond how to make the words sound pretty. In other cases communicators aren’t allowed in the same zip code as a decision – they sit in their cubicles and wait for the smart, important people to decide what needs doing and saying and then they go and do what they’re told.

If the organization is one of the latter, get out of the building now before something blows up and they need a scapegoat.

The senior team may be all kinds of brilliant. They may be at the point where every idea they come up with is a five-star winner. But if this is the case, they don’t need you. Meanwhile, you’re taking a chance in allying your firm with a distressed brand, and to do so without the ability to participate fully in decisions that will have potentially dramatic implications for your career is utter stupidity.

If they want a typist, let them hire one. But you’re an intelligent professional who can help them if they’ll work with you. Wish them the best on your way out the door.

6: Are you proud of the relationship (aka The Grandma Test)?

Sometimes we take on clients because we need the cash. We don’t love them all, nor do we respect them equally. But that’s what standards are all about, right? We do great work for all of our clients because we are professionals. When you’re pondering a distressed client, though, it’s important to adhere to the very highest standards and insist on uncompromising conduct – from the client and from yourself – because so much is at stake.

You probably have or had someone in your life who represented unflinching integrity, a person who evaluated others on a strict scale: it was either 100% or it was a failure. No excuses. The best was expected and demanded. Maybe it was a priest or rabbi or minister. Perhaps it was a teacher. A family member, even.

For me, this person was my grandmother. If I came up short she didn’t yell, she just let me know she was disappointed in me, and that was as bad as a flogging could possibly be.

So when you have considered your potential new client from all directions, when you have asked and answered the questions above, take one final step. Imagine telling Grandma that you’re representing Acme Widgets. When her eyes narrow, they way they do when something morally suspect slithers into the room, imagine explaining your decision. Does she consider it and tell you she’s proud of you for investing yourself in trying to clean up a dirty corner of the world, or does she shake her head quietly, muttering about the mess you’re making of your life?

In the end, it’s your business. Your career. Your reputation. And, if I might be a tad melodramatic for a second, your soul. It’s your reflection you have to look at in the mirror. All I can do is assure you that even if a given person or organization has a right to professional PR representation, they do not have a right to be represented by you.

If enough of us hold ourselves to a higher standard, and if enough of us are willing to call out those whose behavior embarrasses our industry (as Rosanna Fiske did in the commentary I linked in part one), perhaps we can eventually reach the point where we are more respected by the public at large because we have shown that we deserve that respect.

Part one of two…

I work in the world of marketing and corporate communications, and my track record of business-related posts probably demonstrates how seriously I take ethical concerns. For instance, not long ago I made clear that I think understanding the truth of a bad news story aimed at a client comes before worrying about how to respond. Back in November, I took a hard look at the eroding credibility of public relations as a profession and suggested that maybe the behavior of PR practitioners had a lot to do with our slide into lawyer, hooker and used car salesman territory. At various points along the way I’ve ventured opinions on everything and everybody from Toyota to Tiger Woods (to Augusta National), BP to LBJ, Target to Dillard’s, and Rupert Murdoch to the Denver Post, which used to be a newspaper.

Sometimes I comment on what strike me as merely bad strategies. Other times it’s about indefensible behavior that calls into question people’s character. But this time we’re so far over the line that we’re not talking about ethics or professional standards or strategic judgment. No, today we’re talking about amorality and the rank sociopathology of an industry (or at least a significant segment of it).

Witness:

• Brown Lloyd James (BLJ) worked with a Libyan oilman to improve the image of Moammar Gadhafi.
• Bell Pottinger felt no need to resign their work with Bahrain even after the killings of seven protestors earlier this year.
• As things in Bahrain deteriorated, the government hired another US firm, Potomac Square Group, to provide strategic counsel to the nation’s Embassy in DC.
• Now, as Bahrain is taking fire for hassling Doctors Without Borders, it has retained yet another US firm, Qorvis Communications.
• BLJ also helped land a puff piece on the Syrian first lady in Vogue.
• The Monitor Group has worked on behalf of both Libya and Syria.

Of course, there are always things agencies can say in their defense. It was done before the brutal crackdowns began, or it was a fashion piece, or we only work for the economic development arm of the government, or we’ve stopped now, or it was on behalf of a truly worthy project in the country, or we thought they were committed to doing the right thing. Saying things, after all, and doing so smoothly and elegantly and cleverly and occasionally with the slightest dab of misdirection, is what folks in my industry do.

But sometimes nothing you can say is sufficient. If the thing you’re defending yourself against is reflective of a larger pattern, then we know all we need to know. However – what if, instead, a particular PR firm that has heretofore represented nothing but noble and charitable clients, working tirelessly to improve the world, what if this firm chooses to represent a bottom-of-the-barrel client?

Past accomplishments obviously factor into how we evaluate a crime. Businesses (and individuals) can earn a great deal in the way of presumed innocence, and intelligent observers can usually tell the difference between a one-off mistake in judgment and a pattern of anti-social behavior. Still, there are some decisions that no amount of accumulated good faith can overcome, especially when only a barking moron could have failed to understand the magnitude of the problem beforehand.

Perhaps we can examine client lists and histories and find excuses to mitigate behavior if we try hard enough, but is there some reason why we should? At some point don’t we have to stop the rationalizing and acknowledge that Libya and Syria, at least, are nations with long histories. Long, long histories, and I’m not talking histories of charity, philanthropy and democracy, either. No, we’re talking about things like brutal oppression (you know, like the campaigns they’re waging against dissidents at present) and support for terrorist organizations. There’s simply no way to conclude that the decisions to represent these interests was about anything other than money. If you’d represent Gadhafi, you’d represent Satan if he showed up with a suitcase full of unmarked bills.

The good news is that these firms are taking heavy fire for their actions. Rosanna Fiske, chair and CEO of Public Relations Society of America and an Associate Profesor at Florida International, pulls no punches in a comprehensive beatdown at The Hill.

They were, in effect, counseling enemies of global democracy; ruthless despots who cut down their own people to save whatever feeble remnants of their legacies may remain. When asked to explain their questionable work, most offer a ham-handed response to the effect of: “We’re just the messengers.” This explanation is an insult to all who value transparent and ethical communications from governments and private businesses alike.

In trying to improve tyrants’ images and reputations, these firms are damaging America’s international reputation.

…

Ethical public relations places an emphasis on counseling reputable organizations and individuals in developing and maintaining beneficial relationships with concerned stakeholders. The Libyan, Syrian and Bahraini governments have not shown the slightest inclination to cultivate this type of cooperative relationship. Yet all three have seduced American public relations firms into working on their behalf.

One has to question what the attraction is. Is it all for the allure of working with a big-name client and the money?

Efforts to “enhance international appreciation of Libya and positive news coverage of the country,” as the Monitor Group engaged in, or to secure a fawning Vogue magazine profile of Syrian first lady Asma al-Assad, asBrown Lloyd James reportedly accomplished (Vogue eventually removed the profile from its website after heavy international protest from readers), do little to build Americans’ trust in these governments. Most disturbingly, the work insults the very freedoms that allow these firms to engage in such questionable services in the first place.

Kudos to Fiske for using her very prominent platform to draw a line in the sand regarding this sort of sociopathic activity by firms like those cited above. I’m going to take it a step further, though. If one of these agencies represented my business I’d fire them on the spot (and post an explanation on my corporate site explaining precisely why). In this spirit, then, there might be some value in calling attention to the other organizations out there doing business with these firms. Should an existing client decide that they don’t want to be associated with the kind of ethics normally associated with arms dealers, or should a customer want to call or e-mail one of these companies with a complaint, well, that’s the 1st Amendment in action, isn’t it? And since we don’t live in Syria, Libya or Bahrain, we’re theoretically in favor of the exercise of free speech…

So, here are the client lists of the PR counselors in question. This list is compiled from the firm’s own sites and other sources, effective August 16, 2011.

Brown Lloyd James

New York:

MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT

• Al Jazeera English
• Andrew Lloyd Webber and The Really Useful Group
• Forbes
• HartSharp Entertainment
• Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute
• Russia Today (RT)

CHARITIES AND NGOs

• AARP
• Autism Speaks
• BRAC USA
• British Memorial Garden
• Carnegie Mellon University
• China-US Exchange Foundation
• Institute of International Education – Goldman Sachs
• Loomba Trust
• Marine Conservation Alliance
• Pew Environment Group
• Reach Out to Asia
• Shafallah Center for Children with Special Needs(Qatar)
• The Open Hands Initiative

CORPORATE, BUSINESS AND RETAIL

• AstraZeneca
• Challenger, Ltd.
• Christie’s
• Doha Bank
• IBM
• State Farm
• United Group for Projects (Qatar)
• WILL Interactive

GOVERNMMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

• City of London Corporation
• Embassy of the State of Qatar
• Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme
• Independent Panel Review of the World Bank Group DII
• The State of Qatar

London:

MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT

• Al Jazeera English
• Andrew Lloyd Webber and The Really Useful Group
• Associated Newspapers – Metro, Evening Standard, London Lite
• Forbes
• HarperCollins Publishers
• Telegraph Media Group – The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph

CHARITIES AND NGOs

• The Prince’s Teaching Institute

CORPORATE, BUSINESS AND RETAIL

• The Black Farmer
• Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (BARB)
• Disneyland Resort Paris
• Monaco Government Tourist & Convention Authority
• OKA Direct
• The Royal Opera House
• The Royal Opera House Manchester
• The Walt Disney Corporation

GOVERNMMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

• Girls’ Schools Association
• Judicial Appointments Commission
• Lord Levy
• Maison de Monaco
• Oxford University
• The Principality of Monaco

Doha

MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT

• Al Jazeera English
• @bahrain

CHARITIES AND NGOs

• Al Fakhoora
• Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar
• Georgetown University- School of Foreign Services in Qatar
• HH The Amir’s Katrina Fund
• Shafallah Center for Children with Special Needs

CORPORATE, BUSINESS AND RETAIL

• Carbon Trust
• Centrica (British Gas)
• Doha Bank
• Qatalum
• Qatar Financial Center
• Qatargas
• Qatari Diar
• United Group for Projects

GOVERNMMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

• Education City – Qatar Foundation
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Qatar Tourism and Exhibitions Authority

Bell Pottinger

• The government of Bahrain.
• Emirates Airline
• Fortnum & Mason
• Milklink
• BPEX
• EADS
• Airbus
• RSA Group
• PowerPerfector
• Trafigura
• Almac Group
• DWF
• The government of Sri Lanka
• Britvic
• Cadbury’s
• Currencies Direct
• Davenport Lyons
• DP World
• Emirates Airlines
• HP
• Innovation Expo
• It’s Your Choice
• Kellogg’s
• McAfee
• Milklink
• Müller
• Seven Seas
• Skills for Business
• Sky
• SynCo Bio Partners
• Unilever
• TAG
• Viridor Waste Management
• VISA
• Vodafone
• Waitrose

Potomac Square Group

• No information available.

Qorvis Communications

• George Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate & Gardens
• Intel
• Kennedy Krieger Institute
• Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
• Plasan
• Revolution Health
• Rosslyn Business Improvement District
• The Washington Post
• Virginia Lottery
• Youthaids

Monitor Group

• According to Wikipedia: “The Monitor Group does not disclose its list of clients. Even when discussing clients in-house, Monitor uses acronyms to protect client’s identities, a mark of Monitor’s hyper-confidentiality. Some engagements that have appeared in the press due to their public nature include a major initiative with the Libyan government and an organizational effort with the University of California.

Anybody who can help me fill out the client lists for The Monitor Group and Potomac Square Group, please drop me a note.

Next: Tips for PR Pros Thinking About Hiring on With Distressed Brands…

Yesterday Ragan’s PR Daily, an excellent resource for professional communicators of all stripes, offered up a feature entitled “8 things to consider when TV news wants to skewer your client.” As is the usually the case with Ragan’s stuff, Gil Rudawsky’s article provided some useful on-point advice for the media relations practitioner, and the comment thread finds other experienced folks jumping into the discussion in helpful ways.

But – you knew there was a “but” coming, didn’t you? – I can’t help quibbling a little. Let’s begin with Rudawsky’s eight points:

1. Prepare your client for the worst. Only on rare occasions is it possible to impact a television report. Remember, TV news programs tend to take a side, and if it is not that of your client, get ready for a shellacking.

2. Think twice about going on camera to respond. Through editing and transitions, proactive comments can be made to look defensive and even embarrassing. There are many cases when it makes sense to provide your side of the story on camera, but think about it strategically first. Do you really stand to alter the tone of the story by going on camera?

3. Provide clear and simple responses to their questions off camera.

4. Offer a short statement. A long statement will be cut in half or paraphrased. Television news typically uses four- to seven-second sound bites. Write your statement accordingly.

5. Get as much information about the story as possible. Whom are they interviewing? What documents do they have, and what’s their angle?

6. If you do go on camera, stick to few focused message points, regardless of the line of questioning, to avoid a damaging sound bite.

7. Consider making a response video, offering your side of the story. Post it on YouTube, repurpose it on social media channels, and tag it so that it shows up on searches for news stories about the topic.

8. Follow up with the reporter as more positive news happens, because you know the other side will be doing the same. At some point, your side might get some air time.

Nothing wrong there, is there? Except that his advice ignores the very first thing I’d do. It sidesteps what I would argue is the single most important thing a PR representative should do when a negative story draws a bead on his or her client.

What’s my alpha-imperative? Find out if the story is true.

Your client is used of selling stolen babies on the black market? I’m not talking to any reporter, on camera or off camera or in the same zip code with a camera, until I have some facts in hand. Maybe Rudawsky assumes this part – I’m sure many top-flight PR pros would – and I’m certainly not trying to paint him in a negative light – I’m merely using his post as a jumping-off point for something that has bothered me for awhile. (NOTE: Rudawsky works with a highly respected firm here in Denver and for all I know agrees with me on everything I’m about to say. I’d certainly welcome a response, should this post find its way to him, and Black Dog will gladly provide him space to address the question if he likes.)

PR vs. The Truth

I have known and worked with some absolutely world-class PR pros in my day, and I don’t mean that as hyperbole. I have been fortunate to work with a couple of the best corporate PR teams on the planet in my career (US West in the late 1990s and Volvo Cars North America in the early to mid-2000s), and I learned an incredible amount working with people like Roger Ormisher, Soren Johanssen, Jerry Brown, Steve Hammack, Marti Smith and Garth Neuffer. I’ve also dealt with some who seemed only vaguely concerned about the facts. They see themselves as being there to represent their clients’ stories, period. I recall badgering an accomplished senior colleague on this very point some years ago and the reply was brief and direct: “everyone is entitled to have their story represented in the best possible light.”

So, PR reps are like lawyers, then? We know that those accused in legal proceedings are entitled, by law, to counsel. We know that this right extends to the guilty. And to the guilty-as-sin. We know that lawyers routinely defend the most heinous members of our society, that they defend those who are obviously guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt, and we know that they offer up the most vigorous defense possible. This is how the system works, and in a nation of laws we must believe in the system because the alternative is rampant vigilantism.

Does public relations really play by the same assumptions? Well, I suppose you could argue that the 1st Amendment guarantees people the right to tell their stories. Corporations are people and money is speech. If you’re so inclined, then, you might craft these datapoints into something like a systemic demand for image representation. One further imagines that you could handily wrap a code of ethics around the whole bundle and walk away feeling pretty good about yourself.

Of course, there’s nothing like a Miranda ruling regarding the right to PR counsel. And if you need a spin job but can’t afford one, local agencies are not, I repeat not, available to be appointed by the court of public opinion. There’s no PR analogue to a public defender’s office. If your reputation gets stomped by the local FOX outlet you don’t go to jail (not directly, anyway). You don’t have to go to several years of graduate school and pass the a hellish bar exam to hang your shingle (although the APR certification process is certainly rigorous, as professional standards go).

In other words, if you’re a PR flak representing pond scum, I’m not persuaded by a faux-ethical construct that encourages me to accord you the same kind of status that members of the legal profession enjoy. You may represent whomever you like, but you tie your reputation to that of your client every time you sign that retainer agreement.

Which means that the facts, as they relate to a bad news story for your client, are your practice’s single most important concern.

Q: Why Don’t Sharks Attack PR Professionals?

A Gallup analysis from last August indicated that the public’s opinion the PR industry was eroding, and in November I drew on those results in a piece questioning whether PR practitioners were to blame. The argument is much the same as it was then – PR professionals are often all too willing to defend the indefensible, and whether these activities are conducted under cover of an ethical code or are unflinchingly about the benjamins, the result is deteriorating public respect for what we do.

It’s worth noting, by the way, that in the Gallup poll cited above, PR’s negative ratings were a mere five percentage points better than those for lawyers. When we consider that a Google search on the term “lawyer jokes” returns nearly 1.5 million results, well, is that really a road we want to go down? Lawyers have an excuse when they stand up for a sociopath. You, fellow PR representative, do not.

Something to think about….

What? Oh, right.

A: Professional courtesy.

Watch this. Right now. Then bookmark it, because I want you to come back and watch it at least once a week until you have it memorized. Also, I’d be grateful if you’d drop me a line every so often reminding me that I need to watch it again, too.

Many thanks to Erika Napoletano of RedHead Writing for pointing this out to us. And, of course, thanks to Scott Stratten of UnMarketing.

I hate limbo. And that’s what I’m seeing a lot of in marketing right now. Don’t accept it. Maybe some of us have gotten past the “Rage against the dying of the light” phase. But now the light is frustratingly flickering and just not coming on. Give it some more juice! Marketing and communications is a powerful force for business change. Use it!

Read all about it. Pass it on. Then act on it.