Will Washington’s Sequestration Sequester Our PR Budgets?

It’s time to add “sequester” to the list of words we could do without. In case you don’t already know, dictionary.com defines it as “to remove or withdraw into solitude or retirement; seclude?” You know, terms like, “fiscal cliff,” “kick the can down the road,” “move the needle,” and my election-year favorite, “47%.” I’m starting to think so.

Maybe it was because the mainstream media already began referring to Wednesday’s Mid-Atlantic snowstorm, which was supposed to “retire” DC for a day, as “Snowquester.” Then again, maybe I’m just wondering what communications wiz chose “sequester” as the clunky, if euphemistic, word describing $85 billion in mandatory government spending cuts that went into March 1.

Whether Uncle Sam calls it sequestration or the “Sh*% Hits the Fan Act,” make no mistake, these cuts, if implemented fully, are predicted to have far-ranging negative consequences. They range from an estimated 1%-1.5% drop in GDP, (resulting in nearly zero annual US economic growth) to reduced satellite coverage and lower resolution (read: accuracy) predicting the weather.

But a recent AdAge article brings up another good point that hits very close to our PR home. Government ad spending is one of the first expenses on the sequestering chopping block. The army, for instance, spent $47 million in the US in advertising in 2011. And government PR is essentially a DC cottage industry, ripe for additional reductions.

Sequestration sucks for PR in other ways too. As a profession that cares deeply about the implied messages of things, draconian communications spending cuts by Washington might send a powerful signal to private industry that they too, can do without in-house or outsourced public relations. The sequester might sequester spirits as much as it does budgets.

It’s what’s known as the proverbial “chilling effect.”

I truly hope this will not be the case. Yet with congressional gridlock at historic highs and approval ratings hovering near an all-time low of 15%, there’s growing fear that the full weight of the spending cuts will take hold across the entire advertising, PR and marketing sectors.

After that, the chilling effect gets downright cold. If government stumbles under its own bloated fiscal weight, you can be sure the private sector will follow as the two are inexorably linked. The fact that the Dow Jones achieved two days of record closes and February’s jobs report (which comes out Friday) is predicted to add a respectable 175,000 jobs might not be enough to offset DC’s disarray.

The irony is that, were such a scenario to unfold, each political party would be working overtime to spin the causes of these problems as the other party’s fault, requiring some fancy communication skills in the process. Our services would again be deemed “needed.” Unlike the sequester, now is not the time for the PR industry to “withdraw into solitude.”

Effective communications is essential in good times and bad. So what can we do as an industry to lobby Washington in reconsidering its actions? I guarantee 100% of Americans are in favor of that (not 47%) with no needle moving or can kicking required.

Turning A Bad Habit Into A Big Weapon

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 10/19/12.

Two debates down, one to go. And one final opportunity for President Barack Obama to prove he can turn a bad habit into a big re-election weapon.

What habit is this? Considering that my PR hat is never fully removed, even when I'm not in the office, Obama's schizophrenic two debates -- one a massacre and the other a rock-solid performance -- got me thinking about three terms (and not presidential ones): over-promising, over-servicing and over-delivering, and how they relate to the PR profession as well as the POTUS.

Watching the first of three debates, while extinguishing my own professional firestorms, I found myself agitated over what many called Obama's weakest showing. According to CNN, 67% of viewers thought Mitt Romney “nailed it,” versus 25% for Obama. It was as if our eloquent president failed to show up for work, treating supporters to a stunt double -- someone who looks like Obama, but is rightly given no dialogue. Unfortunately, this “stunt double” spoke: Too much professorial style, too much equivocation on what Romney called his over-promised record, and when he did answer back, too many over-serviced responses.

With the Romney rematch, Americans were treated to a different Chief Executive. If anything, this Obama over-delivered. There were times during heated exchanges -- women in the workforce, the Libyan terrorist attack -- that I thought the President would leap from his lionesque stance and pounce on his challenger.

But even an Obama triumph has left some miffed. If on one debate Obama can over-service and another he can over-deliver, what does that say about the President’s true character? And which character will show up on November 6?

Switching over to public relations, over-promising is often the first step on that slippery client-agency slope where saying “Yes” too often cements an expectation that there will never be a “No.” And once you have over-promised, it becomes second nature to over-service, delivering more than what budget lines called for, and more than what can be accomplished in a reasonable timeline.

Agencies that find themselves on this path toward self-destruction, like Obama did in debate one, become their own worst enemies. In a recent article on the subject, Wallop! On Demand, CEO Kristin Jones rightly calls this cycle a “plague” -- and I’m sure many in the PR profession will agree with us both.

Jones offers some straightforward advice for combating the over-servicing affliction that many agencies suffer. Like an insurance claim, documentation is critical -- making sure deliverables are clearly spelled out. That way, when something “extra” is asked from the client, there is data to support your agency’s contention that it wasn't part of the original planning and will cost more.

Tracking goals versus actual results is also vital, as it serves as a check on PR executives’ natural tendency toward being “Yes” people (guilty as charged). You know who you are. You find excitement and exhilaration in the challenge of rising to seemingly impossible heights -- like, say, career-defining political debates.

But in all fairness to this over-servicing malaise, casually dismissing these terms as 100% negative requires a debate-style rebuttal. 

Used in limited proportions, periodic over-reaching is good for the mind, body and soul of an organization. Think of how many people became world leaders (or even CEOs) by just doing what they were told, towing the line, or completing their list of daily tasks and calling it quits? Not many -- and a recipe for mediocrity. Andrew Carnegie, who was known for his strong opinions on hard work and going beyond the call of duty, captured that in his quote: “Do your duty and a little more and the future will take care of itself.”

Translation for PR execs: if you over-promise and over-service, you had better over-deliver. If used in the right amounts, over-servicing can be a helpful weapon in allowing your agency to stand above the crowded rest -- no matter what the short-term balance books say -- instead of a bad habit.

As for this article’s own internal debate, charting the right communications course between Carnegie’s and Jones’ opinions requires careful sounding. Four years ago, President Obama revved up crowds with his campaign slogan, “Yes we can!” And perhaps in three weeks time he will convince enough voters that “yes we still can!” equally applies.

Today, whether you’re the president of the United States, the president of your own company or chief visibility officer of a global PR firm, “No, we can’t” is all right too -- provided you have not over-promised or over-serviced what you can deliver and it isn’t your company’s 24/7 knee-jerk response.

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 10/19/12.