Fantastic Collaboration?! Maybe Giving Up the F-Word Would Have Been Easier Than Ditching the C-Word?

Ahh, C-words and F-words. What a lovely way to start a Thursday blog. But considering the disturbing news week with bombings, poisoned letters and a fertilizer plant explosion, perhaps it’s the perfect time to write a follow-up on these lovely gems of the English language.

In February of this year, ThinkInk launched an experiment: could we, as a company, strike (or reduce to a minimum) usage of the word ‘client’ from our copy –especially if its usage was meant to devalue, demean or unfairly generalize the men and women who literally pay our bills and salaries.

Like ex-smokers in the throes of nicotine withdrawal, cutting back on our C-word count proved anything but easy. And, as many ex-smokers do, often we traded one harmful choice for another. Rather than using phrases like “client needs,” or blaming an entire organization for some creativity failure, we instead went the other route, overly personalizing our frustrations and directing that anger toward individuals. In some instances, we adopted new C-words or “curmudgeonly” when speaking about clients.

Curious to learn more, I also reviewed my inbox, searching for C-word references. Let’s just say the results caused an F-word or two to slip out. In dispassionate computer speak, Microsoft Outlook kindly informed me, “Your search returned a large number of results. Narrow your search, or click here to view all results.”

Thank you, Outlook. Granted, some of my staff have titles that include the word “client,” which of course skewed the results. But even an email I sent earlier this week was peppered with our favorite C-word.

Clearly we could have done better.

Perhaps it was the flaws in our original parameters that led to our flawed results. After all, client isn’t a bad word. It’s just how we use it that can hurt. The same goes with personalizing attacks. While it’s OK to disagree and disagree vehemently with our CLIENTS, it’s not OK to treat them with fuses so short that any minor tangle causes an explosion.

Think about how much more slack we give our friends. Do we want to call them F-words and C-words at times? Absolutely. Yet we don’t, because we know there’s a friendship at stake; there’s surge capacity inside all parties to absorb shocks and arguments. So we shrug our shoulders and move on.

Clients aren’t our friends. They’re business partners, cultivated over mostly successful PR results. They wouldn’t be clients, otherwise. But their feelings can be hurt just like anyone else’s. The reality is, if I’m finding a client conversation difficult, it’s likely they’re finding the situation challenging as well. Neither of us is happy.

So before we reach for an arsenal of C-words, F-words, expletives and snarky nicknames, let’s tweak our experiment. “Client” is back in play at ThinkInk but client-bashing remains off limits. Take a deep breath. Count to a thousand, eat a sandwich and channel your peeves into passion – steadfastly solving problems and finding solutions – don’t whine about them.

That way, we can all celebrate another F-C combination: Fantastic Collaboration. Three cheers for that!!!

When it comes to successful PR, those are words we should all be proud to say.

‘Going Rogue’ Again? Keeping Client Communications In Check

With a title like the above, you might think we’ve returned to the days of Sarah Palin’s memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life. 

But this time I’m not talking about a “mavericky” Alaskan -- who, along with a very talented PR machine, masterminded a brilliant and profitable 15 minutes of fame. I’m talking about the client-PR agency relationship and how, despite living in an age of instant communication, some maverick-prone clients fail to keep their PR agencies abreast of what they are planning to say, how they plan to say it, which media outlets they’re talking to and who’s writing what. It’s as if we’re being undervalued -- a topic I discussed in a recent blog, Proving PR’s Business Value Easier Said than Done, But Not Impossible.

A recent AdAge article also addresses this growing advertising agency concern, citing data from The Bedford Group that finds the average client-agency relationship length has fallen to under 3 years versus 7.2 years in 1984 -- a drop of almost 60% over three decades.

What has changed and why is this happening?

Even my agency has not been immune to so-called rogue clients. A press release gets drafted without our knowledge. A media interview is conducted without our review and the client is caught off guard. Each scenario is a potential PR minefield.

Notice in the preceding paragraph that I was very selective in my language, as all PR execs should be. At no point did I say “without our consent” or “without our green light” -- and I think that’s the problem right there. Turf wars between agency management/oversight and client control. Considering that client-agency relationship lengths are so short, we must do everything in our power not to step on clients’ toes, or we may be perceived as know-it-alls.

Trust me, we’re not. And in the power struggle that communications can become, clients have the final say.

That said, there is a reason why we call the client-agency arrangement a relationship and not a doctor-patient review. Clients come to us for creative ways to improve their brand, not reinvent it. They’re not sick. They’re not dying. Agencies are integral to this team effort. And that collaboration, as I addressed in another blog, begins with thinking about clients less as machine-like conglomerates, and more like individuals with communication needs that must be met, not serviced.

So what we have here are two partners failing to communicate -- one that is perceived to be micromanaging (the agency) and one that’s looking to preserve its own voice. As AdAge rightly points out, technology ironically hampers our communication efforts as excessive emails and meetings trump genuine correspondence and conversations, watering down the quality of our time together.

And since this article began with a political reference, I’ll begin my wrap-up like this: agencies and the clients they represent need to press the “reset button,” remembering to be transparent about what each side plans to do and when they plan to do it, within reason. It’s a building block of trust and mutual respect. PR agencies are there to help, not hurt. And we can only do that when clients are honest with us and we are aware of their intentions. Likewise, agencies must involve their clients actively in the communications and PR outreach process.

Of course, this advice won’t stop all instances of going rogue, nor will it consign the occurrence solely to our industry. Sometimes, for very deliberate reasons, clients employ elements of surprise to their communications advantage, keeping everyone but their innermost circle in the dark. The recent shocking resignation of Pope Benedict XVI demonstrates that even inner, inner circles aren’t always privy to the thoughts of one individual.

In most cases, as seems to be the case with Alaska’s former governor, going rogue helps no one, not even the so-called “maverick.” Fittingly, like the drop in client-agency relationship length, Palin’s Amazon book price has fallen 60% too.

Does your agency have a going rogue problem? Inspired by the data gathered from The Bedford Group, I’d like to begin collating my own research on the client-agency “going rogue” phenomenon and report our findings in a follow-up article. Beyond the suggestions I have offered, how does your agency address the problem? Are there examples of a contentious client-agency relationship being healed by an attitude adjustment? Any particularly jarring “rogue moment” that caused your agency to put its foot down and change communications course? Lastly, like a heart attack, are there any warning signs that rogue has arrived? I would love to hear about your experiences with clients “going rogue.” 

This article originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 03/06/13. 

Proving PR’s Business Value Easier Said than Done, But Not Impossible

Here we go kicking off another week full of media pitching, content marketing, social business and thought leadership strategies, pitching for new business and, most importantly, keeping ThinkInk clients very happy. How do we do that?  It’s not easy but we start by demonstrating and creating value in everything we do.  Why do it otherwise?

So this week’s theme is all about value – what we create for our clients and ourselves.  We’d love to get your views on demonstrating value to your clients, whether or not you’re in PR.  What are the biggest hurdles you face? And your advice to others?

Please share your comments below.

“To know your enemy you must become your enemy” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War, ancient Chinese military treatise

The above quote might sound a little harsh, especially as it relates to public relations and determining its business value, but this is essentially what Kristin Jones, CEO of Wallop! OnDemand, suggests in a recent post on Bulldog Reporter article without directly saying it.

Jones argues that in order for PR execs and their companies to maximize their value to clients, they must begin thinking like them. In fact, not just think like them, but propose solutions and pitches that demonstrate an ability to act like them too. While clients certainly aren’t the enemy of PR companies, sometimes the economics-based and direct dollar value language they speak is so foreign to communications industry pros (who know more about marketing campaigns, crisis management and the sometimes-fuzzy ad value math) that those aspects of a client’s business can feel adversarial. The result is a PR team reduced to second- or third-place status rather than being an integral component to boardroom “elites” or partners.

Jones recommends the following steps to counter this problem:

·         Educate yourself on the economics behind value

·         Make value creation your mission

·         Step out of the shadows

But after reading her article again I was left with this nagging question…. how do PR execs actually educate themselves on the economics behind value?

The answer: they must become their enemy.

Mind you, this is not an easy task. Many in the PR industry claim to have gone the communications route partly because their brains “aren’t wired for finance or business.” Let someone else crunch the numbers I’ve heard many a time. Earning an MBA might seem impractical for more senior executives, but perhaps PR agencies should begin recruiting those with business backgrounds – much in the way they’ve hired ex-journalists to help tell more compelling client stories. Another approach might be an expanded role for a PR company’s in-house accountant, an individual most likely to appreciate and understand your client’s by-the-numbers needs.

There’s also continuing education on the cheap. Coursera, founded last April, is a for-profit online educational outlet that provides free web video courses and has gained significant notoriety in the past several months, attracting some $22 million in venture capital. Courses, which include topics on economics and business strategy, (among many others) are broken up into multiple pre-recorded sessions along with quizzes and the occasional written assignment. How much or how little the student does is entirely up to them.

So perhaps PR agencies should carve out additional time for staff to make use of resources like this. It won’t raise your company’s business IQ overnight. But it could make a lasting, positive impression whose “compounded interest” – an economic term we all should know – really adds up.

And isn’t that what PR is about after all?