The Rising Influence of Blogs

Posted on July 28, 2008 | 2 Comments

Some things really are changing in our world. I spent an afternoon last weekend joining part of the BlogHer Conference in San Francisco.

BlogHer is a network of more than 13,000 mostly female bloggers, representing over 10,000 blogs. They collaborate to share learnings; 2,200 of their editorially-vetted blogs join in an advertising network. I was introduced to this organization originally by Lisa Stone, BlogHer's CEO. Together with partners Elisa Camahort Page and Jory Des Jardins, the three women formed BlogHer in February, 2005.

I joined for a portion of what was billed as the "Unconference" -- a setting wherein small, self-organizing groups discuss and collaborate on topics chosen by the group members themselves. The process bore much resemblance to what I had seen in "Open Space" conference settings. When I left the room, I had a strong sense that something significant was happening here.

The New York Times covered the conference in a descriptive Sunday feature. Rob Halper, one of my colleagues at Johnson & Johnson, spent more time than I at the conference, and provided his own assessment.

To me, the 150+ people in this Unconference -- and the 1,200+ people in the general BlogHer conference -- represented, in effect, new journalists for the generation ahead. There was awesome, well-articulated wisdom represented in the room on some topics -- and awesome, raw, well-articulated opinions on others. Not dissimilar from what you would have found in a traditional newsroom. The difference is... BlogHer is a growing, vibrant community of entrepreneurial journalists; while traditional newsrooms are generally demoralized, shrinking communities of salaried journalists. Like I said, some things really are changing in our world.

If you check out the BlogHer web site and blog, you'll get some idea of the range, depth and frequency of topics which are being addressed by this cadre of new journalists.

Ray Jordan
Corporate Vice President,
Public Affairs and Communications
Johnson & Johnson

Opportunity for the Chief Communication Officer

Posted on July 18, 2008 | 1 Comments

A few weeks back, I had the chance to co-host, with Jon Iwata of IBM, Roger Bolton of APCO and Jolie Hunt of Thompson Reuters, a dinner discussion on The Authentic Enterprise with some of the best agency minds in our profession.

Joining us for the evening were Richard Edelman of Edelman Worldwide, Mark Penn from Burson-Marsteller, Ray Kotcher from Ketchum, Aedhmar Hynes from Text 100 and Keith Yamashita, the principal of Stone Yamashita Partners. Julia Hood, who oversees PR Week, also joined us for the evening's conversation. Our aim was to solicit some insights into how these leaders see the trends outlined in The Authentic Enterprise -- globalization, Web 2.0 and greater stakeholder empowerment -- are playing out inside the companies and institutions many of them represent.

As you might guess, each offered a unique perspective and there was no shortage of interesting conversation. In all honesty, however, the night's discussion raised more questions than answers. Nonetheless, many of the issues raised were quite provocative (I hope readers of Page Turner, will weigh in with their own thoughts on these issues, since many of them are deserving of their own commentary).

As you ponder what the Authentic Enterprise means to you and your organization, how would you respond to these important questions?

• Who will seize the new responsibilities that are an outgrowth of the new environment described in the Authentic Enterprise -- the CCO or the CMO?

There was no consensus view on this point, which means the jury is still out. Jon Iwata (who now oversees marketing and communications at IBM) felt strongly that there is a window of opportunity (maybe 18 months) for communicators to seize the opportunity in front of them, though he is not convinced many chief communications officers will seize the day.

• Do today's CCOs have the capability and influence within their organizations to take on these expanded opportunities?

Bottom line: Some do. Some do not. Some don't desire to. While some in our profession are eager to take on the expanded role of marketing, others aren't willing to expend the political capital necessary to do so for a range of reasons. For example, in some industries, such as Technology, the CCO is still more likely to report to the CMO than the CEO.

• Are agencies challenging their clients to take a broader view?

Yes and no. Many of the larger firms -- Edelman, Burson and Ketchum are encouraging their clients to take a broader view of communications inside their respective organizations, though they were quick to point out that some clients see communications as a strategic function, while others see it as simply a transactional function.

One of Aedhmar Hynes's great revelations occurred when she migrated to the U.S. from the UK. In the UK, Aedhmar said her principal client was most often the CEO versus the CCO. In the U.S. she's found it to be just the opposite. A dynamic to which she has had to adjust.
Still, for others, like Keith Yamashita, his clients are seldom the CCO or the CMO. In fact, Keith's firm is usually hired by CEOs of major brand companies -- like HP, Starbucks and Mercedes-Benz -- when they are facing big challenges or undergoing major change.
In the end, I thought Keith offered one of the evening's most insightful observations. He said that when your client is the CEO, you seldom run into turf problems between the CCO and the CMO. Somehow, they just figure out how to collaborate and work together. Regardless of our individual circumstances, that's something all communicators should think hard about.

Dave Samson
General Manager, Public Affairs
Chevron

An Intelligent Design of Our Time—The Authentic Enterprise

Posted on July 15, 2008 | 6 Comments

With apologies to intelligent design adherents and wishful thinkers of the public relations industry, I want to propose that the fancied idea of an Authentic Enterprise, as promulgated by fellow members of the Arthur W. Page Society, is an alluring but untenable thesis. We are better off positioning the corporate communication function as a competitive enterprise and serving as its principled advocates, not its brokers of values. To do otherwise is to apply a sentimental moral imperative on what is a bedrock but fast-evolving function of business.

I have five concerns about the much-discussed Authentic Enterprise white paper:

• SUBJECTIVE. The notion of an Authentic Enterprise is not measurable and thus not manageable. Like so many euphemistic placeholders of the influence industries -- Trust, Reputation, Relationships, as examples -- the characteristic of authenticity escapes any rational attempt to develop consistent, repeatable criteria and to assign measures to observed outcomes. Page members should expect more. Senior corporate communicators should support sound science, irrespective of the fact that their work is solidly housed in the grey and often ambiguous social sciences.

• SHARED ASSET. Authenticity is both a shared and indirectly earned attribute. As such, the corporate communications officer (CCO) can never take credit or be blamed for its growth or decline because so many figures and functions affect it. It is like stock price in a public company. It is even like love in a relationship. Myriad variables underpin such a thing as authenticity and astute researchers will remind us that those factors are usually masked and always on-the-move. To give it sanctuary in communications is professionally perilous. To call it the coin of our realm is mystifying.

• UNTESTED. The Authentic Enterprise is a proudly-held work of the Society, rightly so. It represents original thinking and a sincere attempt to advance the CCO function. But it lacks the testing and time to subsume the Page brand or to speak with authority for its membership. My own view, obviously, is that authenticity is more paradigm than providence; I may be wrong, but I surely know that its authors are not yet right. For that reason, it is surprising that the Page Society is now convening conferences and functions under the Authentic Enterprise banner.

• TOO LATE. To be authentic is arguably important to any Fortune 500 company, subjected as it is to unprecedented transparency requirements and the constant inspections of our very social media and regulated marketplaces. But we are quickly moving from a crisis of credibility to a crisis of economy and such vague expressions as authenticity are unlikely to preserve market share, much less grow it in this coming era of shortages... and did I mention tight budgets. What will spell the difference for corporations and their communications arms in a downturn are specific, persistent and tangible programs that position products and services and, yes, de-position competitors for superior advantage. This suggested public posturing by my peers, like a Scout's pledge, will hardly impress.

• INAUTHENTIC. Like the term public relations, Authentic Enterprise is also deceptive because it suggests an even-handed earnestness that cannot be shown to every player of a stakeholder community. The Authentic Enterprise is rooted in the development and communication of values, of course, but corporations by their nature and within their cultural and legal boundaries compete and confront as much as they posture and project. Accordingly, their strongest values are based on the necessity to make a profit, something which is not universally shared in the broader marketplace -- ask your favorite blogger, activist or NGO. What will be authentic to some will be inauthentic to others. It is an un-winnable proposition that ties a CCO's hands and unnecessarily moralizes to them an impossible and even counterproductive mission.

In Ron Culp's July 3, 2008 Page Turner Blog post, he shared with us what students already know about authenticity: Duh, was the reaction of one college student to this vaunted thesis. There's nothing wrong with authenticity, per se, but it should be a given, an ante in our special form of marketplace poker. What we have instead is a low-set bar for a high-potential profession, one that can be expected to move markets, not mediate them. It is an excuse to cry, We are no longer in control, when those who understand the new rules and tools are dominating.

If we set the expectation that a CCO's first purpose is to appease and not compete, then we will dumb-down the science of our certain game. We are better off progressing good research and honest discourse as fair-minded, ethically-guided competitive communicators. To do otherwise is like forcing the manufactured vision of creationist devotees into the laboratories and books of evolutionary biologists. It's about how things really are, not what we think they should be.


Alan Kelly
CEO of The Playmaker's Standard, LLC,
and Adjunct Professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication.