Opportunity for the Chief Communication Officer
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
Next entry: The Rising Influence of Blogs
Previous entry: An Intelligent Design of Our Time -- The Authentic Enterprise
Member Comment:
Dave,
I think that one of the values of the Authentic Enterprise is that it establishes a “bar” to which communications professionals should aspire if they are to maximize their organizational value. I agree with you that some will step up to the plate; others won’t. The greater question is not whether one wants to step up, but rather whether one is capable of such a step. There is a need for greater business acumen that many in the communications profession have or want to acquire. Listen to discussions about reputation and trust in the AWP versus and business meeting and there are often stark differences. The question is how does the organization create value, not how does the organization become more well liked or does more good for society. When more people can turn CSR discussions into business discussions, they will be able to go toe-to-toe with other corporate officers. Some are already there; some will likely not get there. Some organzations will demand it; some will continue to be content with “old school” communications.
Like Jon, I had both corporate marketing and communications at Nortel. It was extremely tough, because the technology was tough to learn. I was appointed by the CEO and approved by the board because I was judged to have the business knowledge to take on the marketing role. I had conflicts with many of the marketing vice presidents, but that was because we had traditionally had SBU marketing. I was the first corporate marketing officer in the history of the company. But, after we acquired Bay Networks, the CEO of Bay became president of Nortel and a member of the board. As a Silicon Valley-type, he was convinced that technology companies should have technically-based marketing types running marketing and our conflicts (over much more than marketing), led to my departure. Silicon Valley companies have not traditionally seen much value in PR other than as part of the marketing mix. But, many other companies would be prime for such a combination, if they had the right people and could be convinced they would receive greater value from combinining perspectives rather than keeping them separate. CEOs typically love to receive counsel from someone who can wear multiple hats versus just one.
As I’ve said in other blog comments, business professionals are picking up knowledge of communications and reputation much more quickly than communications professionals are picking up knowledge of business. This will continue to be a problem for our profession.
By Elliot S. Schreiber, Ph.D. on August, 04 2008