The actual results were nowhere to be found.

An email was sent to PRSA asking where the actual results were. PRSA originally refused to release the results, citing competitive reasons, even though its 2008 survey results had been available online. A day later, however, PRSA posted the 2011 results on its PRSAY blog.

The results, as presented, contradicted Fiske’s otherwise glowing review what members appeared to be thinking.

Only 56 percent of the survey respondents indicate “satisfaction with membership.” To those of us who attempt to practice ethical PR, an obvious emphasis should be on improving upon whatever is leading to 44 percent of members being less than satisfied.

Instead, potentially negative information wasn’t mentioned either in the results or in Fiske’s blog post. More to the point, a basic calculation about the number of PRSA members who responded to the survey shows that very little should have been inferred from the survey in the first place.

The reason why has to do with basic survey methodology.

PRSA’s survey error

PRSA wrote that “Ketchum worked with Braun Research to complete online interviews with: 1,126 current members, 202 lapsed members, and 584 never members.” It is unclear how these members were chosen and how well they represent the total membership, two points which PRSA recommends doing as best practices when reporting survey results. How members were chosen and how many responded are critical issues in determining the validity of the responses, as well as the accuracy of claims by PRSA leaders about the survey results.

Presumably, however, these interviews were the online surveys solicited to all members in June. PRSA says there are more than 21,000 members. If all members were surveyed, that means the response rate was about 5 percent*. More below…

From PRSA’s Code of Ethics

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

Core Principle Open communication fosters informed decision making in a democratic society.

Intent:

To build trust with the public by revealing all information needed for responsible decision making.

Guidelines:

A member shall:

• Be honest and accurate in all communications.
• Act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which the member is responsible.
• Investigate the truthfulness and accuracy of information released on behalf of those represented.
• Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.
• Disclose financial interest (such as stock ownership) in a client’s organization.
• Avoid deceptive practices.

It is likely PRSA experienced a sampling error with its recent member survey.  The problem is that an adequate response rate is subject to debate. (In my graduate survey research course, we were told we needed at least a 70-percent response rate in order to draw a reliable inference from survey results.) Nevertheless, this source discusses how to handle a low response rate.

A presumed 5-percent response rate* should be considered low; therefore, any inferences drawn from this survey should be made with a caveat that a low-response rate means it is difficult to generalize the results across the entire PRSA membership.

That’s not what PRSA did.

PRSA’s claims

PRSA choose instead to boast the following:

“…Our research shows that PRSA members not only value the National organization and their local Chapters almost equally, but also appreciate the National organization just a tiny bit more.” – William Murray, PRSA president and COO

“(Members) are … incredibly satisfied with the value of their PRSA membership.” – Rosanna Fiske, PRSA chair and CEO

PRSA’s response

When criticized for spinning the survey results, PRSA went on the offensive. Arthur Yann, APR, vice president of communications, accused this author of smearing the society and criticized the approval of a post comment by longtime PRSA critic Jack O’Dwyer, by saying that “you continue to entertain offensive, discriminatory, possibly libelous and certainly non-germane comments on your blog posts.”

Yann also accused this blog of providing a “selective interpretation” of the data even though the original post ended with this statement: “It is important to note that because of how the results are presented, more than one interpretation can be made…. I post my analysis to provide a perspective I believe is lacking in PRSA’s versions of the results.”

Fiske responded most reasonably, saying, “Any research needs greater context in order to synthesize the data. Providing our different perspectives here is part of that process.”

Indeed.

What is troubling is PRSA’s adherence to a perspective that seeks only to bolster the image of PRSA.  At a time – it’s ethics month – when the society is pushing for ethical practice, and rightfully calling to the carpet other organizations that suffer from ethical lapses – including the PR firm, Ketchum, that was contracted to do the PRSA survey – PRSA makes great effort to diminish, ignore and divert attention away from its own transgressions.

To call this disingenuous is to be charitable.

* PRSA said it would make other results available by request: “PRSA members may request access to specific data from the survey by sending an email prsay@prsa.org.” An email sent a week ago to three of PRSA’s communications personnel requesting the actual survey response rate, among other questions. The information has yet to be provided. This post will be updated if it is.

Comments like these make me wonder

We hold these beliefs in part because our livelihoods depend upon delivering good publicity and buzz. Despite protests of many in the profession, me included, public relations is not publicity. The common assumption is that it is, though, and it is an assumption with cling to whether or not we outwardly agree with it.

At the end of the day, much of what we do takes the form of publicity, while less visible aspects of our jobs – strategy and planning, for example – frequently go unnoticed. They are aspects of PR that are not nearly as sexy as making our clients look good.

We are our own worst enemies in enhancing this perception. A case in point is the recent PRSA counterpoint to the article about the value of negative publicity in the New York Times. The actual research discussed in the article found that in some instances negative publicity can have a net positive effect on the bottom line, such as increased sales of products despite bad press. Michael Jackson and Seinfeld’s Michael Richards are two convincing examples.

But rather than take on peer-reviewed research, published in the September-October issue of Marketing Science, PRSA instead tossed out red herrings and protested about the NYT article merely because it didn’t like the conclusion – that negative press can actually have a positive effect in some instances.

PRSA’s Garry McCormick responds: “But whereas bad publicity can initiate or rekindle interest in a celebrity, negative publicity is potentially more harmful to a company or brand.”

Guess what? The research article in question says the exact same thing, in so many words. The first line of the article is: “Negative publicity often hurts.”

The research was further clarified:

“Using a combination of experimental methods and econometric analysis, we demonstrate that the effect of negative publicity depends on existing product awareness. Although negative publicity hurt products that already had broad awareness, it helped products that were relatively unknown…”

McCormick, in protesting the NYT article, does not argue the research results (because he can’t); rather, he is protesting what he views has “false stereotypes and myths regarding the value of public relations….” The NYT article barely mentions public relations, if at all, unless McCormick is subtly equating publicity, the topic of the article, to public relations. If so, eyebrows should raise.

He does suggest that “it’s also doubtful that many C.E.O.’s are telling their public-relations staff to help the company’s publicity effort by trashing the brand’s reputation in order to increase sales.” Again, the NYT never suggested such a thing. The protest therefore comes across as off-point and bewildering.

The Marketing Science article was a nice opportunity to advocate for peer-reviewed research in a profession emboldened by feel-good assumptions that need to be challenged; instead, PR responds with unfounded, and characteristic, protests that fail to actually tackle the matter at hand.

It is all too convenient to comment in hindsight about how businesses handle crisis events. A characteristic of crises, for those who have experienced them firsthand, is that they are unplanned and therefore much of the response is enacted quickly, assuming organizational paralysis is not occurring.

Because of the inherent urgency of a crisis, analysis of responses will naturally reveal imperfections in how a crisis is managed. As researcher Brooke Liu of the University of Maryland correctly notes in the March 2010 issue of Public Relations Review, crises are frequently judged by the amount of negative publicity created from the event.

When Domino’s responded to a viral YouTube video of employees spitting on pizzas, among other acts, the company’s response was criticized for being too slow. ReadWriteWeb even entitled a post, “Domino’s: How One YouTube Video Can Ruin a Brand.” Read the rest of this at Bulldog Reporter.

If you are not aggressively monitoring your own and your organization’s online presence, you are not only missing big-time opportunities, you are also potentially enabling damage toward reputations that might otherwise be avoided.

Here’s why: What is said about you online is more critical now than ever before because with social media it is far easier for anyone to attack you anonymously and even impersonate you without your consent. Anonymous attacks are commonplace on news sites because news media outlets take laissez faire approaches to anonymous reader comments in order to gain more online advertising revenue.

Impersonations are happening all over the Internet and on Twitter in particular to the point that one led to a high-profile lawsuit recently and the emergence of a new feature on Twitter: verified accounts. Examples of fake Twitter accounts: here, here and here. See what happened to U.S. Representative Dean Heller (R-Nev.) this past week. A Reno blogger for months was tweeting as if he were Heller and few knew it was occurring. The fake Heller garnered more than 500 followers. Heller’s communications personnel should have been all over this from the beginning.

Prior to social media, online mock sites were common but far more intensive to execute. A Twitter account takes seconds to create and followers will arrive within moments.

This is why it is important for people, especially those in the public eye, to monitor online content. I add strategic, relevant keywords to Google Alerts and the alerts are sent to me daily. I also use my RSS feed in the same manner. I know within moments or hours when certain terms show up in Twitter, on various websites and I even receive updates written by certain contributors to news sites and blogs.

When something libelous or illegal appears — for the record, criticism or harsh opinions are neither, and if something is true, it is not defamation and therefore perfectly appropriate to be published — or somebody takes your work and uses it for their own purposes without appropriate attribution, you have an option to take action.

This is where take-down notices come in. These are often sent by legal personnel and have a threatening tone, which is why such notices should be vetted by public relations personnel rather than the other way around. I know of a number of experiences where people requested take-downs or sent cease and desist letters that did so with such antagonism, it only exacerbated their problems unnecessarily.

Here is a simple, and to me an obvious, way to avoid escalating the situation – and paying attorney fees.

Last week one of my blog’s posts was swiped and republished on what appeared to be a spam blog, a subaccount of a larger series of blogs under one domain. I quickly did a database search for the site’s owner and sent him the following email. I have added my comments as to why I wrote it the way I did. His response and the outcome are outlined below.

Dear (name of site owner):

I respectfully request that these two posts either be removed from this site or proper credit and link-backs be given to the original source: my blog (http://thegoodthebadthespin.com/2009/06/18/sotomayor-and-sexism-npr-gets-it-right/).

[Two links to the plagiarised content were inserted here.]

Note two points: one, I presented options for a resolution, but I kept them to a minimum. Also, I outlined the problem and the resolution in just one sentence.

It is clear that the writing was taken directly off of my site with only minor (and perhaps automated) rewrites. It clearly states that the material on my site is copyrighted, just like [your own sites] are. While I am happy to have my material appear elsewhere, common etiquette suggests that at the least a link and credit be given to the original source.

I point here to the fact that both of our sites have appropriate copyright information as well as imply the obvious: 1. It’s not that big of a deal to me that my material appears elsewhere, but that 2. I am asking for credit and a link.

[Your site] appears to be an incredibly valuable resource, one that I would be happy to promote in any other instance.

This is one of the most important parts of the email – genuinely validating the site owner’s own work. This appeals, hopefully, to a mutual sense of purpose in what we both do.

I appreciate in advance your immediate attention to this matter.

Nothing gets to me more than messages that ask for something but do not put into the request a time element. Also, this statement is written in an active voice, is firm but does not come across as too demanding.

Respectfully,

Bob Conrad
(775) 636.7959
www.conradcommunications.com

An important point with this notice is not what’s here but what’s not. Nowhere do I make a threat, nowhere do I have an antagonistic or even boastful tone, nor do I attempt to force the person to do anything. My language is generally neutral instead of negative. Instead, I (hopefully) calmly outline the problem and offer choices for solutions.

Now, had I been ignored, or treated poorly in return, there’s plenty of other options to entertain, including playing hardball. That wasn’t necessary because here was the result: The site owner replied within hours (he’s across the globe), acknowledged the site was a spam subaccount and wrote this:

Thanks for being more polite than many!

Contrast this situation to what Tim Ferriss faced with his book, The Four Hour Work Week, and a message sent by, you guessed it, an attorney.

Strategic reputation management requires two things: 1. technical know-how (being on the cutting edge of technology to know where problems can arise), and 2. strategic messaging. Tone, style and choice of words can make a problem better or worse. Too often people without either of these skills enter into zones where they ignorantly act on impulse and with knee jerk reactions.  Such approaches, absent experienced council, almost certainly lead to more trouble.

Many have had a field day with the David Letterman fiasco regarding his jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughter(s). Key to the debate is the point that Letterman and his writers clearly screwed up in their innuendo about Palin’s daughter.

It is obvious the joke in question was meant in reference to Palin’s oldest daughter, age 18, who became pregnant before marriage and while still a teenager. But Letterman and his writers inadvertently were referring to the daughter at the ballgame in question, who is 14, getting “knocked up by Alex Rodriquez.”

Palin rightfully pushed back against the joke. And she continued pushing. While Letterman initially tried to diffuse the situation with more humor, Palin clearly wasn’t satisfied.

She went too far in attempting to reframe the context of the joke, such as suggesting her youngest daughter should stay away from David Letterman. However, the situation was precipitated by Letterman’s inadvertent mistake and Palin was correct to fight back.

As an added touch of grace to the situation, both Letterman’s eventual apology and Palin’s acceptance of it, shows that in such situations a good fight must ensue before a true resolution can be find.

Palin necessarily stood up for herself and her family in order to get to that point. She should be commended.

[EDIT: Jim Lukaszewski just chimed in and he takes Letterman to task. You may read his response here.]

Like this post? Buy the book!

Available in paperback ($18.98) or as an eBook ($7.49).

Image by Jim Fischer. Used under Creative Commons licensing.

Strategic level communications requires instantaneous decision-making that can either hurt or harm organizations and their publics. Public relations practitioners instinctively know this, but they also have a tendency to over-communicate. In many, if not most, instances, communication is key. In other situations, it can prove to be an organization’s death knell.

Humans have ingrained into their psyches the inherent need to react, perhaps as a biological defense mechanism. When under the gun, this need to respond can easily get out of control, and it is this trait that contributes too often to public relations disasters.

Former Illinois Rod Blagojevich’s mission to clear his name illustrates this point. His incessant defenses ultimately led to public ire. At a certain point, his chatter led to people simply wanting him to go away. Whether or not he was (is) truly guilty of alleged crimes, his defensive behavior contributed to a perception of him being guilty – or, more likely, he is commonly viewed as an annoyance.

Blogajevich is not an abnormality, however. Just about everyone is quick to rush to their defense when allegations arise and attacks occur. It is a normal part of human behavior, and the public relations view of the world reveals inappropriate defenses occurring daily.

From a strategic standpoint, it is also cause for careful consideration before responding. Here are five questions to ask before reacting to a negative charge:

1. Will the response create more ire?
2. Will the response say too much or too little?
3. Will the response contribute to entropy?
4. Will the response engender a positive outcome?
5. Will the response be about you, or will it express concern for your greater publics?

These questions can create justification for a timely response. Similarly, increased dialogue and/or conflict can be a legitimate strategy for any given situation – it all depends on the desired net outcome. From conflict can arise great alliances.

But to put A Response, or Any Response, at the top of the list is a grave error. Misquoted in the newspaper? A perspective is taken out of context? A belligerent attack is posted about you on a Web site? Giving considerable weight into responding to these kinds of situations is likely to create more memories where they’re not needed, and it can actually legitimize the antagonists.

With that in mind, from the outset, a non-response should always be the first option to consider when under the gun. A strategic mind knows when to shut up.

IMAGE: Image by Jim Fischer. Used under Creative Commons licensing.

10. Community

9. Social

8. Strategy/strategist

7. Top

6. Platform

5. Market/ing

4. Consultant

3. Relate/relationship

2. Value

1. Transparency

Honorable mention for being suspiciously overused: evangelist.

Please add yours in the comments below.

Strategic Advising

Two weeks ago I mentioned that public relations inherently suited for emerging, social media. A (somewhat false) debate has arisen that, conversely, social media experts inherently know public relations.

It’s an assumption that must be granted some sympathy given the many illusions these technologies generate.

Despite public relations’ paradoxical brand problem, PR practitioners, those who understand that PR is not equivalent to publicity (which is really one subset within a range of expected core PR competencies) should be de facto experts in strategic communications planning, which entails the establishing of goals, objectives, key messages, target audiences, strategies, tactics, budgets and, finally, the evaluations of those plans.

Perhaps key to the planning process is generating a big idea, a core theme and vision that is unique, creative and sets your plan apart from the myriad others and makes yours the best of the best. It’s a tall order, and it’s what good public relations is all about.

Notice social media, media relations, video production, publications design, Web site creation, story pitches, products sales and so on are not listed in the above criteria for planning. The reason is simple. Although each of these are vital to have in many PR plans – one can make a living just pitching stories to the news media, for example – they are aspects of a larger public relations vision.

Presidential candidate John McCain rightfully criticized candidate Barack Obama for not knowing the difference between a strategy and tactic this past election season. It was one of few things McCain was right about. Knowing the difference is critical in military engagement. The distinctness between the two is also a key for understanding public relations.

Briefly, tactics are what we do – the actions employed to achieve objectives. (There’s a crucial difference between goals and objectives as well, both of which are often confused and erroneously used interchangeably.) Strategy is more general, basically a larger view of the playing field that generates ideas from which tactics are generated. Strategy is an art unto itself. The use of social media in a campaign is strategic. Twittering and putting photos on Flickr is tactical.

It is with this in mind that my first e-book is about the strategic dimensions of advice giving. In this book, I discuss, in a Q&A format, with crisis management expert Jim Lukaszewski the art of strategic advising. (Well, he does most of the talking.)

It is my hope that discussions such as these can help inform the nuances of good public relations practice, in particular to hopefully elevate the strategic mindset.

The book may be downloaded here.