The European Commission and communications – shall the two never meet?

Admittedly this has more to do with Directorate General Trade communications as those of the European Commission as such.

I recently attended a seminar organised by the European Association of Communication Directors, EACD it was a follow up on the communication around the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement, ACTA. For background on ACTA you can read the DG Trade explanation here and Wikipedia here. What the ACTA Nay-sayers had to say in the matter can be read here.

The Commission was represented by the DG Trade Commissioner’s spokes person, John Clancy, he tweets here.

ACTA was rejected by an overwhelming majority in the European Parliament. And a note here, for several reasons I am against ACTA and I was one of the many minute cogs that brought this result about. My main reason for opposing ACTA is that it want to use yesterday’s answers to tomorrow’s problems. On a different level I am rather uneasy about the fact that unelected faceless public officials should negotiate important treaties like these more or less in secret. Yes, I do understand that trade is one of the trickier subjects we have, still transparency is always to be preferred.

However, I found Mr. Clancy’s approach to communication astonishing. He claimed that it was due to lack in communications resources that the public rose against ACTA. I have written about the EU and its overwhelming communication budget before: Communications strategies – it is easy!, The European Commission new anthem – Can’t buy me love…, Another epic fail in European Commission communications.

In the post “Can’t buy me love” you can see that the European Commission Communication Directorate has €97 billion in their latest annual budget. The Trade Directorate also have an unspecified amount of their annual budget dedicated to communications, I can’t say how much because guess what! when you type in “EU DG Trade Annual Budget” in Google you get NO results. And what is more interesting, when you search on the DG’s own home page there are no results either. I hold the door open to that it is my derisory talent in searching that is the actual reason for this – so if anyone can do better I’m more than interested in learning more.

Mr. Clancy spoke in some length about that he thought it was easier for the Nay-sayers to get their message across than the ones like him that was in favour of ACTA one reason being that the hash-tag #killacta was so good. Because, according to Mr. Clancy, a negative message is a whole lot easier to pass than a positive one. But with all these resources surely the good people at DG Trade would have been capable of coming up with the hash-tag #saveacta?

And while I do agree that activists could be better in pushing alternative agendas rather than just saying “No” in this case the Commission played a large role in the negative reception of this treaty. A “No” is the normal reaction when a constituency feel they have no information. So if you want a positive reaction – inform your audiences.

The longer the seminar went on it became clear that the Commission had tremendous problems in managing the new communications landscape. They had difficulties in facing the fact that they can no longer hobnob with representatives from corporates. Mr. Clancy admitted as much and he outlined what they are doing to change this. He mentioned amongst others technical briefings to journalists, when reading DG Trade’s 2012 management plan you can see that they have planned for 2-3 seminars for journalists and 4-5 background and technical seminars. Personally I feel there should be 27 of both, to be held in the member countries and in the local languages. Nothing is said about the target audiences nor the size of the seminars. And while this is a very good start I fail to see anything about e.g. blogger and activist outreach. In questions like ACTA where Intellectual Property Rights played an imperative role these are big constituencies. And what more they are often knowledgeable of their subjects and they enjoy digging into and analysing rather difficult and technical documents. Now of course the Commission, in this case, doesn’t have to agree with these constituencies and their analysis, but one obvious way to manage these groups is to constantly provide information. And what more, some of the analysis provided can be actual use to the commissioners negotiating. But will the Commission (DG Trade) do this? Nope.

Now, neither bloggers/activists or Twitter is the magic silver bullet that will solve the Commission’s communications problems. They are just part of the whole communications pie. There is the tiny fact that EU citizens are increasingly negative towards the EU, but sticking their head in the sand saying that all negative feelings are misconceptions due to badly informed citizens and lack of resources seems to me just be a proof of that the Commissioners seems to think that communications are below them. I mean if we as EU citizens are badly informed how about informing us? Agreed it isn’t easy, but with a budget of €97 + surely they could start?

Why does PR seemingly hate itself?

In one of his latest posts Craig Pearce is discussing why PR very often now is called Stakeholder Relations and discusses in some length different nomenclature of PR. I can only agree, but would like to ask one question he isn’t asking – why does it seem that PR:s are into self-loathing like this? And are we? Is it just a mis-conception?

I personally think I’m lucky to work with PR. I love my job, I enjoy finding out about an audience and how best to craft a message it will relate to. But is it only “the evil media relations and spinning falsehoods ” to use a quote from Craig Pearce? And what more, why doesn’t seem like we want to take the fight and to stand up straight and be proud?

Is it due to lack of professional pride we see new terms like CSR, stakeholder relations etc. creep up? Which under the surface both are little more than public relations in new wrapping?

Or is it like a bigger writer once put it

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet?

Hungry or guarded – Hungrig eller avvaktande

In his most recent blog post Seth Godin, Seth’s Blog: Hungry or guarded, is discussing hungry people vs. guarded people. His theory being that we should try to work with the hungry people as these will also help us in our development and will help us to learn. It’s difficult not to agree. But I have a question, and with the risk of showing myself as deeply ignorant of strategies and target group identification –how do you identify the hungry?

####

I sitt senaste blogginlägg diskuterar Seth Godin, Seth’s Blog: Hungry or guarded, hungriga och avvaktande individer. Hans teori är att vi skall försöka arbeta med de hungriga eftersom de kommer att hjälpa oss i vår utveckling och vi kommer ockås att lära oss mycket av att jobba med dem. Men jag undrar, och med risk för att framstå som okunnig och bristande kompetens i att identifera en målgrupp, hur identifierar vi de hungriga?

How social media changed PR

Another wonderful presentation I wish I had produced….
http://www.slideshare.net/ronstrand/how-social-media-has-changed-pr

What do you work with? – Vad arbetar du med?

What am I working with? The question has been on my mind lately. As often it is related to the changes that come from using social media. We can agree that social media changes a lot, and we can be certain that our job as PR’s will be different tomorrow, just as our job today differs from our job of yesterday’s.

But my question comes from a real bewilderment – and it might be due to that I don’t speak English as mother tongue – but are we more and more referred to as “marketing”? Now for me marketing and PR are two sides of the same coin, or work cousins – you get the picture. Marketing is more figures based and they do advanced stuff like pricing and geo marketing. We as PR’s… well you do know what we are working with. But our math is usually a budget and that’s more often than not only deducting cost from a pot of money allocated to us.

Lately however, I’ve started to see marketing as an umbrella term, but when you read closer what the writer is all about they mean PR. Is it time to find a new industry name? Or am I just too set in my ways? Does a term even matter? I mean, as long as we achieve results. Still I sometimes wonder – what do we work with?

####

Vad jobbar jag med? Jag har ställt mig frågan på senaste tid. Som ofta är frågan relaterad till de förändringar som sociala medier innebär. Vi kan alla hålla med om att sociala medier kommer att förändra vårt jobb, precis på samma sätt som att vårt jobb idag inte ser likadant ut som det gjorde igår.

Fråga kommer sig av ren förbryllan, man talar allt mer om oss som ”marknadsföring.” För mig har marknadsföring och PR alltid varit två sidor av samma mynt, branchkusiner, ja, jag tror du förstår vad jag menar. Marknadsföring är mer sifferbaserad och marknadsförare jobbar med avancerade uppgifter som prissättning och geomarknadsföring. Vi som jobbar med PR … ja, du vet vad vi jobbar med. Och vår matematik är relaterad till en budget och det innbär oftast att vi subtraherar från den ursprungliga summan vi fått oss tilldelat.

Men jag ser allt oftare marknadsföring som en paraplyterm som refererar både till marknadsföring och PR, men när man tittar närmare talar skribenten ofta om PR. Är det dags för ett nytt branschnamn? Eller är jag helt enkelt inte tillräckligt flexibel? Och spelar egentligen en term någon roll? Så länge vi åstadkommer resultat. Men ändå ibland undrar jag – vad arbetar vi med?

Setting measurable PR objectives – Hur man sätter mätbara PR-mål

As my faithful reader might have noticed PR and measurement is something that frequently is on my mind. This is why I get so enthusiastic when I find papers like this: Guidelines for Setting Measurable Public Relations Objectives: An Update published by the Institute for PR. It’s wonderful, not only does it contain the strategy behind it also contains work sheets on how to achieve the various steps. They even identify and provide examples on the dreaded PR ROI! How good isn’t that?

Below is a condensed first taste of the paper:

REMEMBER TO BEGIN WITH THE DESIRED RESULT IN MIND. Mind boggling as that might sound it isn’t. After reading this paper it makes more sense. Once you’ve defined the business objective, work backwards to map the links between those objectives and what PR can do at every stage of the communications process. Doing so requires recognizing how PR outputs drive audience outcomes, and, in turn drive business results.

The editors claim that in many cases, the public relations profession has allowed itself to rely on indeterminate goals in order to avoid being proven a failure. But by doing so, we disallow ourselves demonstrable success. The dictates of business demand more, and public relations will only earn higher esteem and more influence within the business mix, if it sets and demonstrates it has achieved measurable objectives clearly aligned with business objectives.

Objectives link the PR objective to the business objective. Proper PR objectives are derived from the organization’s business objectives. This makes the business case for the PR program.

When management asks what returns are generated from its investment in public relations, they are asking for evidence that communications activities have helped achieve business goals. Without a clear understanding, and in the absence of authorization from top management, the likelihood for success is greatly diminished, relying on luck rather than acumen.

For public relations to be effective, everyone within the public relations objectives-setting process must be realistic about what a PR program can reasonably accomplish with fixed resources and within a specific time-frame. Without reasonable objectives, there is an increased likelihood for disappointment and frustration. For example investing significant resources towards the promotion of “product A” when the company’s future is pinned to the success of “product B” is not in alignment. However, if the PR objectives in support of “product B” are met or exceeded, the link between PR and the overall success of the business is much more tangible, especially among senior executives.

The editors are listing type questions to ask to identify goals and measurements – I sincerely recommend a thorough perusal of this paper…

#####

Som mina trogna läsare kanske har märkt är PR och hur man kan mäta insatserna något jag ofta brottas med. Det är därför jag blir så entusiastisk när jag hittar sådant här: Guidelines for Setting Measurable Public Relations Objectives: An Update publicerats av Institute for PR. Inte nog med att man kan läsa om strategi, det innehåller också tips och trick och steg-för-steg guider för de olika stegen. De till och med ger exempel på”ROI for PR!” Hur bra är inte det?

Nedan följer en kort sammanfattning texten:

Börja med det önskade resultatet. Bakvänt som det låter kan jag garantera att det klarnar när du läser texten. När du har definierat affärsmål, arbeta bakåt och identifiera kopplingarna mellan målen och vad PR kan åstadkomma i varje skede av kommunikationsprocessen. Detta i sin tur innebär att du gör klart för dig (och ledningen) hur PR kan användas.

Redaktörerna menar att allt för ofta har PR-branschen litat på oklara mål – allt för att alltid ha rätt. Men genom att göra så, förnekar vi oss också möjligheten att bevisa att vårt jobb och våra åtgärder är affärskritiska. PR som branch kan enbart få större inflytande och erkännas som verkligt affärskritisk om vi kan visa att vi har uppnått mätbara mål som klart ligger i linje med företagets affärskritiska mål.

Hur många gånger har det inte känts mer som tur än något annat när vi har uppnått våra mål? Redaktörerna besvarar frågan genom att påpeka att PR-målen måste vara direkt kopplade till organisationens affärsmål. När företagsledningen frågar vilken ROI PR genererar, frågar de egentligen efter bevis för hur PR-verksamheten har bidragit till att uppnå affärsmålen. Om att vi som PR-ansvariga inte har en klar förståelse av dessa, är sannolikheten för framgång låg.

För att PR skall vara effektivt, måste PR-målen vara realistiska. Och man måste ha insikt om vad ett PR-program kan åstadkomma med begränsade resurser och tidsram. Utan rimliga mål, ökar risken för besvikelse inom organisationen, med ökad frustration hos oss som resultat. Att till exempel investera stora resurser i till förmån för ”produkt A” när företaget i själva verket satsar på ”produkt B” är inte ett rimligt mål. Men om PR-målen för ”produkt B” uppfylls eller överträffas, sambandet mellan PR och totala framgången för verksamheten är mycket mer påtagligt.

Redaktörerna listar alla steg och all frågor att vi behöver för att identifiera mål och hur vi kan mäta dem – Jag kan bara rekommendera dokumentet …

Longest and biggest wins? – Längst och störst vinner?

I keep coming back to measurement, PR and social media as in particular measurements of PR is something I have been confronted with all my career. For good reasons.

The first time I came across it was when coordinating the Scandinavian PR exercises for Cisco. Looking back I admit it was with varying degree of success… but anyway they used – at the time – press clippings as the only measurement of success or not. And that was fun. At the time I believe there were approximately 20 journals and magazines over the whole of Scandinavia that would write about Cisco’s products. That meant if I achieved 10 clips per month I had decent market coverage. But as I was compared to the UK where at the time I seem to remember they had about 75+ outlets they could work with, so naturally I never reached their number of clippings. I remember in particular one time when there had been a rather large launch, and of course the company could expect a good clip result. In Finland I achieved two press cuttings. That equalled 100% market coverage, not a half bad result if I may say so myself. C’s EMEA PR lead was livid, to put it mildly. Yes, I had tried to manage the expectations by explaining how what the environment looked like. Did it help? Not really.

But how much is perception, how much is managing expectation and how much is simply that PR might not be measurable in the way e.g. marketing campaigns can?

#####

Jag återkommer utvärdering och mätning, PR och sociala medier särskilt som PR, utvärdering och mätning  är något som jag har ställts inför under hela min karriär. Av goda skäl.

Första gången jag stötte på det var när jag samordnade Ciscos skandinaviska PR. Så här i backspegeln kan ag erkänna att det var med varierande grad av framgång … men hursom helst. C använde – vid den tidpunkten – pressklipp som enda mått på framgång eller inte. Och det var kul. På den tiden jag tror att det var cirka 20 tidningar och tidskrifter över hela Skandinavien som skulle skriva om Ciscos produkter. Det innebar att om jag uppnådde 10 klipp per månad hade jag en hyfsat bra marknadstäckning. Men jag jämfördes med Storbritannien där man då, om jag minns rätt, hade ungefär 75 + tidningar de kunde arbeta med, så jag nådde naturligtvis aldrig upp till deras nivå av antal pressklipp. Jag minns särskilt en gång när det hade varit en ganska stor lansering, och naturligtvis kunde C’ förvänta sig ett bra resultat. I Finland hade jag två pressklipp. Det motsvarade 100% marknadstäckning, ett inte helt dåligt resultat om jag får säga det själv. C’s EMEA PR chef var rosenrasande, för att uttrycka det milt. Ja, jag hade försökt att hantera förväntningarna genom att förklara hur hur situationen såg ut och vad de kunde förvänta sig. Hjälpte det? Inte riktigt.

Men hur mycket är perception, hur mycket är att hantera förväntningar och hur mycket är helt enkelt att PR inte kan mätas på samma sätt soma t.ex. marknadsföringskampanjer kan?