Tag Archives: PR

Journalism Ethics: Interviewing the Reporter As a News Source

27 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by in All Rights Reserved, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Donald Trump, Entertainment, Ethics, Generational, Government, History, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Journalism, Language, Opinion, Politicians, Politics, Print Media, Public Image, Public Relations, Republic, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology, Traditional Media, United States, Website, Wordpress, Writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

News organizations have not evolved as much as they have devolved over the last sixty years. Journalism ethics have suffered the greatest. The priority in news organizations has shifted from high journalistic standards to gaining market share. The news anchor or primary news host now use the reporter as hu’s* news source.

I can't match the anchor's name to any of the CNN faces online

CNN news anchor interview CNN reporter Matt Rivers

How Did We Get Here?

Originally, the news reporter job was to gather the facts, confirm the facts, and organize the facts into a story. The myth of Superman’s girlfriend getting the scoop and landing a Page One, Pulitzer Prize article wasn’t how it really happened.

Good journalism was the verification of the facts, careful research, and exposing lies. In the end, the reporter’s name was the byline, not the storyline. Reporters needed the attention to detail of an accountant, the interrogation skill of a great attorney, the ethics of a great judge, and the knowledge of a college professor, in addition to the ability to write a compelling story.

But when investors began buying up news organizations, money became the priority over journalism standards. Advancement was based who could attract a bigger audience. Women were brought into the newsroom, but the motivation was ratings, not equality. Money flowed to those that could produce shock and awe. The young, idealistic journalism graduate discovered that a reporter was underpaid, overworked, and disrespected.

And while the journalism standards fell, the news source wall went up. Organizations created ‘public relations’ experts to ‘control the message.’ Now a reporter is the person between the news organization looking for ratings and the news source that wants to be a shining star.

Corporate Public Relations Mastery of Orwellian Doublespeak

Not every company believes in lying to the public, but it does seem the bigger they are, the less responsive they are willing to be. The most recent major incident is Facebook’s initial response to the data of 50 million users being collected by conservatives connected to the Donald Trump campaign.

After the story broke on Saturday 17 March, Facebook ran silent for days before issuing any response. Journalists that attempted to obtain information and/or a response were ignored. Major headlines were running about the data breach and Facebook was on lockdown.

Corporate PR has made the company the least likely source of accurate, reliable, and/or truthful information. So now the reporter digs up whatever information they can and becomes the ‘expert.’ The news anchor often interviews the reporter as the sole news source because no one else will talk.

The problem with this is that the reporter can’t speak with authority. They are not privy to the inside information so they can only offer hu’s opinion. That changes journalism into gossip and guessing. No one can be sure of anything because no one knows the truth. That leaves it up to the individual to accept what they want to hear and reject what they don’t want to hear. That is never good for a democracy.

[*Hu’s is a gender neutral pronoun for his or her.]

Trump Corrupt Public Relations: Using Business PR as the Model

05 Friday Jan 2018

Posted by in Aging, Branding, Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Ethics, Generational, Government, History, Management Practices, Politics, Print Media, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Taxes, Traditional Media, US History, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Sarah Huckabee Sanders:  White House Deception Secretary

The White House has a corrupt public relations strategy. On 19 December 2017, Sarah Huckabee Sanders stood before the nation and stated, “On the personal side, the president will likely take a big hit.” She’s talking about the tax cut for corporations and the mega-wealthy. Donald Trump even went farther to say that he’d be a “big loser.”

To be honest, I’m not sure if he was talking about himself or the tax plan.

Two days later, after trying to dodge a direct question about whether Donald Trump will personally benefit from the new tax plan passed by Congress, she said, “Look, the bottom line is that a lot of people are going to do really well with under this, the President is an American, and Americans are going to benefit…”

As the White House Press Secretary, Huckabee Sanders is known for her contradictory statements. She seems to have no ethical sense of honesty and factual disclosure. She is the model corporate public relations (PR) person.

Many corporations act as if they have no obligation of full disclosure. They seem to believe that full disclosure is contrary to their business interest. The concept of controlling information, never admitting a negative issue, and never taking responsibility are commonplace in the corporate public relations world. These corporations see the job of the PR person as a corporate cheerleader, not a provider of information.

Government is meant to serve the public and is required to give full disclosure; however, under the Trump administration, public relations is handled under the corporate PR model.

As with corporate PR, the strategy of Huckabee Sanders doesn’t have access to all the facts so that she can honestly say “I don’t know that to be a fact.” She references what other sources state rather than answer a direct question. She uses all the tactics of a corrupt approach to public relations that is designed to deflect and mislead questions and issues.

It is a self-destructive public relations strategy. It requires a constant stream of deception because the PR person has to continue to stay ahead of the discovery of the truth and expand the deception as facts come into public awareness. Eventually, it leads to the loss of all credibility and the PR person becomes the public fool that humiliates herself, and the organization she represents.  

Has Reno NBC Station Gone Fox News?

28 Friday Mar 2014

Posted by in About Reno, Branding, Business, Communication, Ethics, Government, Honor, Management Practices, Opinion, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Taxes, Traditional Media

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Image by Paul Kiser

Reno NBC affiliate becoming a Fox News clone?

The lead news story for Wednesday night on Reno’s NBC affiliate, KRNV was anti-government attack on the Affordable Care Act. The story was attempting to stir up outrage on the advertising budget to promote the new program that will impact millions of uninsured Americans.

The only opinions offered were in opposition to money being spent for advertising without any attempt to find an authoritative source to offer an explanation for why the public needed awareness of the new program. In fact, the only independent source on the story, David Williams, CEO of the anti-government organization, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, suggested that taxpayer money should not be used to educate or promote the Affordable Care Act. He stated:

“This isn’t Coca Cola or Pepsi, this is healthcare, they shouldn’t be advertising…”

The $17 million per month spent to educate American citizens on a program to directly benefit them was about $2 million less per month than the coal, oil, and gas industry spent during the first eight months of 2012 to promote drilling and/or oppose clean energy.

Kristine Frazao

Kristine Frazao – Corporate News Correspondent

Reporter From Russian Television
As confusing as the Fox News-type slant of the lead story, was the person reporting it. The reporter was not an employee of the local KRNV station, nor was the story generated by the parent NBC News organization. The reporter was Kristine Frazao, the National Correspondent for the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which consists of 167 television stations, of which approximately half (88) are Fox, CW, or MyTV affiliated stations.

According to a November 2013 article in Broadcast & Cable (B&C,) Sinclair does not own KRNV, but did purchase three other stations of the Intermountain West group excluding KRNV and the Las Vegas affiliate, KSNV. Sinclair has, according to the story, agreed to operate and provide services for the Reno NBC affiliate.

However, Frazao is new to the Sinclair Broadcast Group. Prior to this year, Frazao spent three years with Russian Television (RT.) Russian Television began broadcasting in the United States in 2005, and its website states that RT:

“…acquaints international audience with the Russian viewpoint.”

Frazao is known for her anti-government reporting and as a reporter in San Diego was criticized for asking a Comic Con attendee why she and the other attendees weren’t protesting in Washington, D.C. against the government rather than coming to the southern California for the science fiction convention.

Image by Paul Kiser

Taking Sides in Reno

KRNV On The Conservative Side?
Frazao’s anti-Obamacare report was likely well received by conservatives in Northern Nevada and perhaps that is why Reno’s local NBC affiliate has taken on a Fox News attitude in reporting. Recently, KRNV changed its tag line from “Where News Comes First” to “On Your Side.” That explains many things about Wednesday’s lead news story.

The Dark Side of PR: Distraction and Deception or ‘Armstronging’ the Public

11 Monday Feb 2013

Posted by in Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Ethics, Management Practices, Opinion, Politics, Public Relations, Religion, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM)

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

In this series regarding public relations (PR) tactics of ‘Managing the Message’ I’ve talked about how some organizations focus is centered on Reaction Avoidance (SEE:  Why ‘Managing the Message’ Doesn’t) rather than public interaction. In a Social Media dominated world, this results in the organization always looking manipulative and weak.

In Part II (SEE: Public Relations Techniques That Kill Organizations) I discussed the use of Anti-listening techniques to avoid and limit public discussion of issues that an organization may not want to address. In this article we will discuss more sinister techniques used to by organizations to ‘manage the message.’

Managing the Message is the alpha and omega of the NRA

Managing the Message is the alpha and omega of the NRA

Managing the message inherently requires the belief that PR people have God-like powers over the public. Add an organizational executive team that already believes they are Gods and we have the perfect storm of ego and a lack of ethics that lead to the worst PR tactics in business. Under these circumstances we move from passive techniques to manage the message into an aggressive intent to distract and deceive.

There are many examples of aggressive attempts to manage the message and in almost every case there are people in key positions who see themselves as the maker of information and disinformation. These people believed that they have justification to take any step necessary to protect the public image of the organization and/or promote organizational goals, ethical or not. Distraction, withholding information, and deception are the rungs of the ladder that sink an organization into deeper and deeper into the dark side of PR.

Withholding Information
Withholding Information and/or blocking information is a tactic of an organization using aggressive and unethical PR tactics. One of the best examples of this is the National Rifle Association (NRA.) The NRA seems to only care about public opinion when the polls tend to support its position, but that doesn’t stop them from trying to manipulating public opinion.

In 1996, the NRA worked with Arkansas Representative Jay Dickey (R) to cut $2.6 million from the budget of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and added the wording the appropriations bill that restricted the CDC from any research that would “advocate or promote gun control.”  $2.6 million is what the CDC had spent in the prior year on gun-related research. The 104th Republican-controlled Congress passed it into law and it has restricted the CDC from gun-related research since 1996. (¹)

The NRA worked with Kansas Representative Todd Tiahrt (R) in 2003, to forbid the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) from collecting statistics on gun injuries and deaths. In 2011, the NRA worked with Representative Denny Rehberg (R) of Montana to prevent the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from funding any research that contradicted or challenged pro-NRA positions. (²)(³)

BP: What Leak?
Another example of withholding information occurred in the summer of 2010 when the BP leased oil rig, Deepwater Horizon caught fire and exploded in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP public image destroyed once video revealed the PR deception

BP public image destroyed once video revealed the PR deception

In the days after the complete loss of the rig, BP PR tactics included denial of an oil leak at the wellhead, acknowledging a small amount of oil leakage, and finally admitting larger and larger amounts of leaking oil that still underestimated the amount of actual oil spilled. At one point BP withhold live video of the oil spill at the wellhead.

BP’s public position was that until anyone could prove otherwise, they could deny any significant oil spill. BP’s ‘prove it’ stance forced public media to accept BP’s estimates until overwhelming evidence piled up against the company. Once it did, BP’s public image was in tatters. No one believed anything CEO Tony Hayward or BP said.

‘Armstronging’ the Public
Technically the act of withholding information falls into the category of deception and distraction, although an organization that is consciously attempting to deceive or distract the public is flirting with possible criminal and/or civil charges. While some organizations (or even some people) might be under the belief that their unethical acts will never be discovered, some organizations may simply be trying to delay or soften a negative issue by forcing the public to learn the details over a period of days, weeks, months, or years. Yet, many times the PR tactics used by an organization is simply a lack of executive ethics rather than a conscious choice.

I cannot tell a lie...well, yes I can,...piece-o-cake actually.

I cannot tell a lie…well, yes I can,…piece-o-cake actually

The most recent high-profile example this is the Lance Armstrong fiasco. The world now knows that Lance Armstrong used illegal performance enhancing drugs and techniques during his reign as Bicycling King, but through denial and aggressive legal means he managed to make most people believe he was innocent. Now he admits he lied, but it is far enough past his glory days that it may not have the impact it would have at the time he was active in the sport. Still, who wants to be Lance Armstrong now? No one.

The problem with managing the message is that Social Media has stolen power away from the PR people. An organization’s public image consists of the support and enthusiasm of an elusive mass of connected people, who can smell manipulation and love to expose unethical acts of people with more money than sense. On the other hand, Social Media readily responds to respect and honesty, which is not  familiar territory to some older business men. As we move deeper into the Social Media Age, the business world will see a new PR model that listens more, talks less, is more humble and less arrogant, loves interaction and rejects domination.

Public Relations Techniques That Kill Organizations

06 Wednesday Feb 2013

Posted by in Branding, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Generational, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Public Relations, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology, Traditional Media

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

In Part I, “Why ‘Managing the Message’ Doesn’t,” we discussed the dangers of trying to ‘manage the message’ in a Social Media world. Part II looks at the techniques used by organizations to manage the message and why they fail.

Organizations that adopt a manage the message policy for Public Relations (PR) assume that they are the controllers and manipulators of the public image of their organization, which demotes the public to the role of a mindless zombie. If that doesn’t sound stupid enough, let’s look at the methods that organizations use to manage the message.¹

[¹ I realize that I’ve used the words Manage the Message five times in the first two paragraphs; however, “insulting PR techniques” isn’t quite specific enough as there are so many of them. 😉 ]

Corporate PR: We manage the message by not listening

Corporate PR: We manage the message by not listening

Anti-listening Techniques
The subtle use of anti-listening techniques is one strategy used by organizations who seek to manage the message. The concept is simple: an organization can’t be held accountable for issues that don’t exist. By not listening an organization can effectively deny existence of an issue because they can claim ignorance, therefore can deny accountability.

One example is the use of formalized procedures for communication from the stakeholders, including the public. An organization might ignore or restrict communication on their Facebook page, requiring complaints and comments to be made through a process that is more complex or requires greater risk to complainer.

EXAMPLE:  From the Facebook page for a Parent/Teacher group of an Elementary School after parents discussed concerns about major changes in the school calendar:

“Please remember that this page is used for the PTC to share PTC sponsored fundraising events and activities. If anyone has comments/complaints about the school they need to be addressed with the administration.”

(From the School’s Marketing Director)

The strategy of denying open discussion of issues allows an organization to divide and conquer people who may object or have a strong reaction to negative events or significant changes. By restricting public comment on their website or Social Media formats such as Facebook, an organization can prevent all but the most committed people from voicing their opinion or concern. For those that do comment, the organization can hide dissent and concerns behind a veil that only they have access to, so the true scope of the issue is hidden from public.

The problem with this technique is that issues or concerns do not go away by ignoring or hiding them. Whether expressed or not the reaction exists and it impacts the public image of the organization. A divide and conquer strategy increases the reaction once people discover that others share their concerns. In the Social Media world, the truth will eventually come out through a disgruntled customer, employee, or other source.  Once the full scope of the deception is exposed the organization will lose all credibility and once the organization loses credibility the public image is also lost.

In January of 2012, the Susan G. Komen Foundation was receiving massive condemnation for a politically charged decision to defund Planned Parenthood. Rather than accepting that the public voice was valid, CEO Nancy Brinker attempted to double down on their position by claiming a bogus conservative-initiated Congressional investigation was reason to deny the grant requests by Planned Parenthood. Her efforts to paint an obvious conservative-motivated action as justified left her and the organization looking like right-wing wackos who had no clue that the organization depended on the perceived goodwill of the public.

By the time they tried to back peddle and fix the problem it was too late. Race For the Cure events in 2012 lost as much as one-third of the participation from the previous year and many donors question the use of their money by the Foundation. The irony is that Nancy Brinker had founded the organization thirty years earlier in her sister’s memory and now the Susan G. Komen name is not so much a symbol of fighting breast cancer as it is a reminder of conservative attempts to use backdoor methods to inflict their religious beliefs on everyone else.

MONDAY: The Dark Side of PR: Distraction and Deception Or ‘Armstronging’ the Public. When ethics are not a consideration, an organization is headed into a downward spiral that will almost always end with a public image that can be fatal. 

Why ‘Managing the Message’ Doesn’t

05 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by in Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Opinion, Public Relations, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology, Traditional Media

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

“What we got here….is a failure…..to communicate” Captain, the Prison Warden in Cool Hand Luke

Captain (Strother Martin) in 1967 film, Cool Hand Luke knew how to manage the message

Captain (Strother Martin) in 1967 film, Cool Hand Luke knew how to manage the message

If you are a business professor teaching students the importance of  ‘managing the message,’ or a Public Relations (PR) firm telling your client how to ‘manage the message,’ would you please stop. No, I mean stop right now. In fact, contact everyone you have taught or advised and tell them you were wrong then refund their money.

CEO Tony Hayward got his 'life back,' but BP is still in PR clean up mode in the United States

CEO Tony Hayward got his ‘life back,’ but BP is still in PR clean up mode in the United States

‘Managing the message’ cost Mitt Romney the Presidential election. It severely damaged Netflix in 2011. It cost a BP CEO his job. It took the Susan G. Komen Foundation from being a major player in non-profit foundations to one that has to hide its name in shame. 

Why?

First, ‘managing the message’ doesn’t work. Second, it’s a cowardly way to approach public relations. Third, it’s stupid advice. Fourth, it will end up causing major problems up to and including the end of an organization.

‘Managing the message’ assumes a person has control over the message. That would be a stupid assumption in a world driven by Social Media. John F. Kennedy’s words should be amended:

You can fool all of the people some of the time….until Social Media picks it up and then you’re screwed.

PR is no longer about creating an image. That was true back in the day individuals had no voice and people were subjected to mass advertising in every thing they watched, heard, and read. That was yesterday. Today an organization’s image is created by everyone who comes into contact with the organization. Customers, especially angry ones have as much of a voice in an organization’s public image as the Vice President of Marketing. Today PR is about listening and being honest and real in everything you say and do. That is something that can’t be faked or managed.

Reaction Avoidance
Managing the message is mostly about reaction avoidance. The idea is that if an organization handles it correctly, any negative situation will be minimized. The technique acts like a dam that has a short-term benefit, but a long-term disaster. When a PR crisis occurs the first instinct is to pretend there is no major problem. That is the start of a PR death spiral that only leads to bigger and bigger denials until the organization appears to be run by fools. By then executives turn and blame the PR staff for not ‘managing the message’ better.

TOMORROW: Public Relations Techniques That Kill Organizations. The two common techniques that characterize an organization who is trying to manage the message and why they fail.

MONDAY: The Dark Side of PR: Distraction and Deception Or ‘Armstronging’ the Public. When ethics are not a consideration, an organization is headed into a downward spiral that will almost always end with a public image that can be fatal. 

Coming This Week

03 Sunday Feb 2013

Posted by in Business, Communication, Crime, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Generational, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Privacy, Public Relations, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

My apologies for those of you who received an email alert regarding the article titled: Why ‘Managing the Message’ Doesn’t. It will be published this week; however, due to an error on my part it was briefly available late on Friday.

Currently I have three articles that will be published this week. They are as follows:

Monday: Why You Hate Facebook and Can’t Stand Twitter
Tuesday: Why ‘Managing the Message’ Doesn’t
Wednesday: Bad Public Relations Techniques That Kill Organizations

These articles should be available by 6:30 AM PST on the day it is published. I am also working on an article regarding ‘Grievance Collectors’ that I hope to publish be the end of the week.

Thanks for reading!

Paul

Epic Fail: Media/PR ‘Experts’ don’t get Twitter

13 Tuesday Jul 2010

Posted by in Branding, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Information Technology, Internet, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Passionate People, Print Media, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Relationships, Rotary, SEO, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, The Tipping Point, Traditional Media

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT  [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

“I just don’t see a way to monetize it” – Local PR Company Owner

Paul Kiser

Some of my best friends are Media/Public Relations (PR)/Marketing Experts…okay, maybe not my best friends, but I do have several people I consider friends who have been/are major players in the PR industry in their market and almost all of them either reject Twitter or are mystified by it. The three questions/comments I hear most from my PR friends are as follows:

  • How do you have time to do it?
  • I don’t see how to monetize Twitter.
  • I just don’t get it

The first question requires that a person accept that Twitter can be something of value to their (or their client’s) business. Unfortunately, many ‘experienced’ business people have a misconception of what Twitter is (or is not,) so they are already under the presumption of guilt on the charge the Twitter is a waste of time. They have to be convinced that it has value, thus deserving it merits their ‘time’. But for many ‘seasoned’ PR types the only way they will accept Twitter as worth their time is if it has an immediate dollar return, which leads to the second comment.

The fact is that Twitter a communication tool leads the experienced Media/PR person to fall back to the concept that it can be used for advertising/spam purposes and when Social Media users respond by unfriending/unfollowing them, they decide that Twitter is a waste of time. All their training and experience tells them that Social Media is a billboard that if they can just find the right ‘trick’ then Twitter can be used to manipulate the public to buy whatever they (or their client) is selling. That is what they know and thus it leads to the third comment, that they just don’t get it.

Twitter is a new variety of the PR Cherry

Twitter is not a spam tool. The idea that you can make revenue directly from Social Media demonstrates a lack of understanding of the environment. It would be like trying to add spam to someone’s personal email. People would not accept their personal message being overshadowed by spam for Sam’s Plumbing and it would be annoying to the receiver. Spam/advertising (all advertising is spam) is an affront to people’s intelligence and when people can turn it off they do, and that means Twitter has no value to many ‘experienced’ Media/PR people.

The failing is in the concept of trying to ‘sell’. Any reputable business does not need to ‘sell’ their product or service. I’ll say that again. Any reputable business does NOT need to sell their product or service. What they need to do is educate the public on their product or service and why it will improve their life. Educating is not selling. Selling assumes that you can manipulate people to buy whatever you’re selling. Selling is a function of greed and greed is unethical.

The Social Media environment exposes selling and rejects it, but it loves educating. Social Media is a learning environment and the PR professional that doesn’t understand that will not understand Twitter. This opens the door for those who can reject the old ideas of PR and accept a new strategy of service/product management.

Meanwhile, we should create a new Social Media tool for those who love to sell. They can all join it and try to sell to each other. Maybe we can call in ‘Spinster’?

More Articles

Rotary: All Public Relations is Local

25 Thursday Mar 2010

Posted by in Public Relations, Rotary

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser

Paul Kiser - District Public Relations Chair - Rotary District 5190

Rotary is challenged in the role of Public Relations. For almost a century we didn’t see a need for Public Relations.   There are good reasons why this was the case, but now we recognize the need for a Public Relations function.

Unfortunately, despite the efforts of many smart and skilled people we are still in the infancy of fully incorporating Public Relations into the hearts and minds of the organization.   In the recommended Club Leadership Plan published by Rotary International, every other club function has a list of its sub-functions, except Public Relations which is blank.   That should not be surprising considering how little time Public Relations has had to evolve in the organization.   The idea to establish PR as a separate club function was a bold step, and it has taken years for the basic concept of Public Relations to take hold.

However, it is time we take another bold act and fully incorporate the function of Public Relations into the soul of the club.   The reason to act is simple: the survival of the organization depends on it.

Rotary International - 105 Years of Service Above Self

Rotary and Public Relations: History
When Rotary was first formed in 1905, it was a small club of four members.   The membership grew rapidly but it remained one club started by young professionals who sought to exchange business based on ethical practices.   There was no need to be concerned about Public Relations because it was just a group of people ‘doing their own thing’.   The change came in 1906, when a prospective member suggested that he saw no reason to join unless the club was doing something worthwhile for the community.   The club members agreed and in 1907 Rotary completed the first community project by building public toilets in downtown Chicago.   It was at that moment that Rotary began interacting with the community, thus Rotary Public Relations was born, but not recognized.

As the decades passed, individual Rotary clubs continued to interact with the local, regional, national, and international communities around them and yet the understanding that Rotary was involved in Public Relations with each interaction did not fully sink in with the clubs, nor the larger organization of Rotary International.   Some clubs equated Public Relations to be ‘publicity’ and shunned the idea of bragging or boasting about the community project and programs, not understanding the publicity is only a part of Public Relations.

The Rotary Theme Logo for 2009-10

What Changed?
As Rotary approached its Centennial a realization came about the need for Public Relations; however, this need was still thought of as publicity.   Many clubs were experiencing a slow loss of membership and it became apparent that the organization needed to make people more aware of Rotary in order to continue to attract new members.  The idea of ‘getting the word out’ was the driving force behind adopting a Public Relations strategy, which is why the efforts have been focused on publicity.  This is probably why the Public Relations function is somewhat of an orphan in the Club’s organization because the priority has been on external communication.

Public Relations: A Holistic Approach
Rotary Public Relations should involve the development of a relationship between the Club and the community. It does involve getting the message out (publicity) but to do that a Club must understand how that message will be perceived. This can only be done if a Club is already aware of their TRUE public image in the community. Public Relations is a two-way relationship that requires listening to the community’s perceptions before sending out a message. If the Club does not know what the community perceives about Rotary, the message could be misunderstood leading to a negative Public Relations outcome.

In order to listen to the community a Club must be accessible to the public. This can be a major problem as a Rotary Club only exists for 1 1/2 hours per week.   Most clubs have no office, nor any physical presence outside of the Club’s weekly meeting. The only way for the public to access a Club is by creating a presence that can be accessed 24/7/365.   Fortunately a Club website can provide that presence, but many clubs do not have an updated website and many more don’t have a website at all.

The other problem is that public image is formed primarily by what a person experiences on a personal level.   An airline can say it loves its passengers in a national ad campaign, but the passenger will determine her or his image of the airline based upon the experience with the people met when purchasing tickets, boarding, and flying. Thus, people perceive Rotary based on the interactions with the members and their Club.

Rotary Public Relations: The Next Level

The Rotary Theme Logo for 2010-11

To move to the next level Rotary Clubs should ask questions of non-Rotarians in the communities about their perceptions of Rotary and the Rotary Club.   This should be done in a way that the person does not feel like they need to make the ‘nice comment’, but rather allow the person to be completely honest.   The Club should be prepared to hear information that may be unexpected and equally prepared to take appropriate action to work to repair any misconceptions or misunderstandings.   Correcting misconceptions is the role of publicity, but it must happen after the Club is aware of the existing public image.

The Club should work to be accessible to members and the public with an active and updated website.   The website should offer information about upcoming programs and projects, contact information via email or phone, and information about the Club, the Area, the District, and Rotary International.

To establish a plan for the Club Public Relations the Bulletin/Newsletter Editor, Programs Chair, Webmaster, along with other key Club leadership should meet to discuss Club goals and how the Club’s Internal message tools can be used to assist in communicating those goals.   Using the resources for Club planning available from Rotary International, the Club Public Relations Committee can establish short-term, annual, and long-term goals.

The key is understanding that all Public Relations is local and that public image is what non-Rotarians perceive about Rotary.

Rotary related blogs by Paul Kiser

Rotary Public Relations and Membership: Eight Steps to a Team Win

Rotary@105:  Our 1st Rotary Dropout

Best Practices:  Become a Target!

Fear of Public Relations