Naked Emperors -- and their PR Firms

PR firms, too often, are letting their executive clients down. They are encouraging them to stroll out in the public square unclothed and unprepared. Result? Their clients are exposed as leaders without vision.

While that may sound harsh, one has to remember that today's marketplace has become a harsh realm.

Market influencers -- media, analysts, consultants -- seem to have decreasing tolerance for bland or boring companies. Nor are they are interested in a particular company's story or product capabilities.

Instead, they are interested in vision. They want to hear from thought leaders -- people like Cisco's John Chambers, IBM's Sam Palmisano, or SalesForce.com's Mark Benioff -- where the market is headed and what opportunities remain to be seized. The perspectives of such leaders are valued because they are provocative, surprising, credible, clear and relevant. They offer a new and engaging view of the future -- a lighted path that represents significant promise. 

But there is clearly room for lesser known leaders -- whose firms occupy a specific market segment -- to present their own powerful visions.

If their perspectives are compelling enough, they are likely to influence the influencers -- encouraging them to write, speak, tweet and all the rest to carry these viral perspectives forward. Market influencers are looking for an illuminating story that will inspire and guide their own audiences, constituents, subscribers, followers and clients. That's what a thought leader can provide.

It's the third party credibility of influencers that executive leaders should be seeking. That credibility enhances brand reputation, builds trust and strengthens confidence among prospects and customers.  

Just consider the example of Gartner. This billion-dollar analyst and research firm has enormous influence over the IT decision-making efforts of Fortune 1000 companies. These companies look to Gartner for guidance and recommendations that will help them invest wisely in technology.

But what does Gartner look for in the IT suppliers it recommends? Two things: Completeness of Vision and Ability to Execute.  These are the central criteria in Gartner's famed Magic Quadrant, a model designed to rank and rate IT vendors. It is designed to categorize them as leaders, challengers, visionaries or niche players.  

What every supplier wants, of course, is to be recognized as a leader. They want to move to the upper right hand corner of the quadrant where they are most likely to make short lists and close deals. But, as you will notice, one must be perceived as having a complete vision to get there. 

That's where my problem with today's PR firms comes in.

It seems to me that too few have the strengths, expertise and capabilities necessary to help their clients develop and articulate a powerful vision.  They are unable to create the thought leadership assets -- the presentations, articles, position papers, case studies, research studies, books -- that will engage influencers and, ultimately, buyers.

What PR firms do tend to be very good at is outreach and relationship building. They can reach out to the influencers -- the media, analysts, associations, consultants, academics and others who shape the climate of market opinion. They can set up a media tour and put their clients in front of influential people. In some cases, they can even launch social networking initiatives, capitalizing on their ability to  reach out and cultivate connections. 

But there's no use in constantly trying to strike up a conversation when you have nothing of value to add to it. That's where I think PR firms are letting their clients down. They are not enabling them to become true thought leaders and trusted authorities.

Instead, PR representatives are merely repeating the same old tired lines and pitches -- sometimes, albeit, in new "social media" venues. And when they put their clients in front of influencers and audiences with nothing provocative to say, they are exposing them to the risk of reputational decline.  

It's time to do better. My simple equation is this: Reach x Relevance = Results. The problem with PR today is that there is far too much (out)reach and far too little relevance. Thought leaders are recognized as presenting relevant and compelling perspectives. They not only engage in conversations, they have something relevant to offer -- often sparking conversations without being in the room.

Quite simply, we don't need more naked emperors. We need more thought leaders.

***

What do you think? Have I gone too far this time? Or am I on the mark? Please feel free to jump into this (hopefully provocative) conversation.

Comments

[Chris Selland]

Britton,

I definitely agree with you that the industry suffers from a lack of 'vision'. And while I certainly wouldn't let the PR industry off the hook, I believe there are other factors at work as well:

* Quite simply - tech is becoming more of a mainstream subject - and it's also getting commoditized. 10 years ago, tech was 'special' - all the whiz-bang technology coming out of Silicon Valley was truly something to behold - IT was visionary. Today, what comes out of the Valley (and elsewhere) is much more evolutionary and much less revolutionary.
* I blame the decimated tech MEDIA industry at least as much as the PR industry. The past few times I've met members of the media I've met noticeably more junior, more rushed, more stressed, less thoughtful people - and probably much lower-paid. 10 years ago, the Industry Standard, Red Herring, Upside, (not to mention Forbes & Fortune) etc... were PACKED with tech ads at $60-100K/page which could pay for some really great editorial. Today - not so much.

Not arguing with anything you've said - but I think the answer is much more complicated. And those few visionaries we DO have these days are getting pretty overexposed. So you're right - we need more vision, but we also need an audience that cares about it - and a media that can communicate it effectively.

[Ardath Albee]

Hi Britton,

Great topic. Based on the volume of PR communications I receive that have no relevance to my blog's audience or my interests, I can't help but agree. I bet I actually write about 1 in 70 pitches I receive. The ratio is probably worse if I were to count.

Sending a tired, routine press release gives me nothing meaty to write about. I end up having to go do research or request things to find an interesting angle. That's because most PR firms I hear from still treat bloggers as journalists for mediocre papers. They don't have "news" they have "announcements."

Big whoop. Not good enough.

Problem is, I don't get paid to do research for PR firms. I get paid by doing work for clients. I write a blog because I love doing it. Therefore, I have to be really motivated and charged up by an idea to go to the trouble. Doesn't happen very often.

Many (not all, thank goodness) PR firms just batch and blast to a media list. There's no attempt at relevance, at all. No new ideas to use because they're wrapped up in tired and overused wording that makes our minds shut down.

But, I also have to play devil's advocate for a moment. I've seen PR firms that try to sway their clients from "the way they've always done it" to no avail. Quite often, companies take the approach of "do it our way or we'll find someone else."

I wish more of them had the chutzpah to walk away.

Thought leadership from a PR firm. That would be a welcome surprise. I'd love to hear David Meerman Scott's take on your post.

Thanks,
Ardath

[Barbara French]

Britton,

Interesting post. A few years ago, the most common complaint about PR firms was their lack of tech knowledge. They were considered clueless flacks. You're taking a different position - that today, too few PR firms provide strategic counsel.

I wonder though if you aren't shooting the messengers.

Tech companies are investing in developer evangelists, customer evangelists, community evangelists, you-name-it evangelists. And you're right, there's an expectation for CxOs to be the top evangelists - about their company and their marketplace.

Is a PR team the most appropriate driver for C-level thought leadership or POV? I don't think so.

Vision isn't the result of a messaging brainstorm. It comes from everyday dialogue and reading and observation. The group of people best equipped to inspire and nuture a CxO's vision come from inside the company and from the CxO's peers also deeply engaged in the marketplace -- external thought leaders from the ranks of management consultants, competitors, partners, academics, etc.

[Steve Parker]

Hi Britton,
I think you need to be careful about broad, sweeping generalizations like "PR firms do this" or "CEOs do that." It's almost never that homogeneous. Nevertheless you pose a number of important questions.

I agree with Barbara that the PR team, whether agency or internal, is not responsible for handing over the vision to the CEO. The CEO had better have one, or they won't last long. So in that respect, I agree with Chris that a general lack of vision cannot be laid solely at the feet of PR people. If the naked emporer never goes to the tailor--is it the tailor's fault?

What the PR team *is* responsible for is helping the CEO articulate the vision he or she has, and molding it into a story that others also can tell. Speaking as a boutique agency principal, I can say only that we know how to do this, have been doing it for years. It often involves what you could think of as "vision training" for the CEO. But it's not really vision itself, that has to do with what business are you in and why. I can't speak for all agencies...no doubt some are clueless about this.

One last thought: I think one generalization that could be made is CEOs of start-ups have fewer problems with this. For them, vision is survival and a strong differentiator as long as its credible. My typical startup client would never bother to start their company if they didn't have a vision for it. For big company CEOs, it's different. It's not usually a survival issue unless they get lost for a *very* long time. Sadly, many CEOs have no vision or have one but can't communicate it effectively. Larger organizations can be way too tolerant of this because they get caught up in a hairball of assumptions about their markets.

[Britton Manasco]

Wow! One thing that continues to astound me is the exceptional quality and incisiveness of the comments I receive on this blog. That's certainly the case here. So let me address this conversation's participants -- not a shrinking violet among them -- one by one.

Chris, you kicked this off by suggesting there are "other factors" beside poor PR contributing to an impoverishment of visions today. You specifically pointed to a decimated media. While I agree with that point, my thought is that this is a factor that company leaders and their advisors (the main targets of my article) have no real ability to control. In fact, they need to be thinking in terms of how they can create their own media (while better leveraging what's left of independent third-party media). They also need to be thinking beyond media. Who are the influencers they must influence? Partners? Developers? Consultants? Bloggers/Social Networkers? Existing customer advocates? The old media game is over. We need to rethink it -- and good PR firms can and should be diligent advisors in this analysis. As for your point about the technology industry becoming less "whiz bang," I think that's a good thing. We can now articulate visions about real-world customer success (see my last post: "Mastering the Customer Success Cycle") as opposed to just the gauzy "promise of technology."

Ardath, it sounds like you are on the receiving end of a lot of bad PR -- a lot of wild pitches and story spam. That certainly shouldn't be happening. In fact, I may be asking too much in this piece of too many PR firms if they can't even manage this problem. But let me address the "devil's advocate" in you. You suggest that it is often the client that embraces a failed status quo and stands in the way of more impressive action on the PR front. I have no doubt that this is true. But I also think it's the role of the advisor to stand up and provide guidance. If the client is championing actions that will lead to reputational decline, the advisor must vigorously (though diplomatically) make the case for a more visionary approach.

Barbara, you question whether I am "shooting the messengers." You argue that the PR team may not be "the most appropriate driver for C-level thought leadership." That may or may not be the case. I don't see why a PR advisor can't be a strategic advisor in this sense. But even if that advice is primarily coming from other strategy consultants or other members of the team or even executive peers, I think the PR firm should be shot if it is deluding its client into believing that its vision is forceful and well articulated when it is not. The PR firm, it seems to me, should have the expertise to say, "This isn't going to work. We need more relevant thought leadership to succeed in our outreach." I agree with you, though, that visionary thought leadership cannot be cobbled together in a messaging workshop. It requires a disciplined and sustained development process -- something that involves the participation (over time) of many key advisors, subject matter experts, customers, prospects, partners and market influencers.

And, finally, Steve, I appreciate your insightful views as well. You noted that I am at risk of being too broad in my critique of the PR industry. But this post was not meant to cover all PR firms. Some are doing spectacular work in terms of building executive thought leadership platforms. Perhaps my qualifiers such as "too often" and "too few" -- meant to suggest that I wasn't painting all with one brush -- were too sparsely placed in my piece. (Perhaps, as they say, "mistakes were made.") But I agree that the problem described here cannot be laid solely at a PR firm's feet -- even if that imagined firm may need to provide better guidance and support. Anyway, I think your emphasis on "vision training" sounds very promising and valuable -- and I agree with you that start-up CEOs seem to have a better grip on their own stories. As you note, it's a survival issue for them. Then again, I am thinking that thought leadership will increasingly be recognized as a survival (and success) issue for executive leaders across the board.

Best,

Britton

[Chris Koch]

Hi Britton,

Nice post. I think you have to be careful about laying too much blame at the feet of PR agencies. It used to be that all PR people needed to do was get smart people in front of the right journalist and the rest would take care of itself. But as you know, the traditional model of journalism is imploding. Few journalists have the time to do the kind of deep analysis that used to make companies (and their PR agencies) look good.

So marketers that hire these agencies have to reset their priorities and expectations. Thought leadership has traditionally been the province of the marketing team, not the PR agency. As you say, that needs to change. But marketers don't seem to be putting that pressure on their agencies to change.

As trade magazines disappear, marketers need to fill the demand for thought leadership themselves. To do that, you need experienced content developers. Agencies are going to have to make this shift, but not until marketers demand that they do it.

[Joe Pulizzi]

Britton...hard not to agree with you. My advice to large organizations with million dollar PR budgets is this - what if you took just a fraction of your PR spend and started to create valuable, relevant and compelling content for your customers?

Stop measuring everything in mentions and lose a bit of control - open the possibilities of having conversations with your customers.

Thanks Britton!

[Justin Kownacki]

Great points, and I agree broadly that, yes, relevance is key. However, relevance isn't automatic.

What's relevant to me may not be relevant to you, and vice versa. Or, what WOULD have been relevant to me had I discovered it last year may now be old news if I just came across it today.

Relevance requires quality, timeliness, clarity of expression and an understanding from its audience. So, in addition to producing content that's worth promoting, social media pros also have to be concerned with who's interfacing with that message, where, when and how. Get any element "wrong" and the info can appear irrelevant, even if it's still entirely valid.

[Craig Badings]

Hi Britton, as you know I am a PR practitioner and sadly I must agree with a lot of what you say. However, I do think that this is a two way street. From experience I have seen many a good, long-term thought leadership strategy put into file 13 because it was too hard, required too much commitment and wasn't going to deliver instant, 'satisfy-the-marketing-director-now' results.
In addition, thought leadership campaigns often require the buy in and support of senior management. If the PR firm only has a line into the markting or corporate comms team, it can be difficult to go over the heads of that team to sell in a more strategic thought leadership campaign if all they want is implementation of the PR part of their plan.
This is where PR practioners need the guts to push back and not accept low level implementation work that undermines their strategic value.