Hill+Knowlton Strategies

A colleague of ours in H&K Canada is an enthusiastic fan of MSN Bridge, an internet version of a popular card game with a passionate following, including Mr. Gates himself.

A while ago, MSN indicated that they were moving to a pay-to-play system and retiring the free version, which resulted in a vocal outcry from players, including my colleague who took it upon herself to organize fellow players to petition MSN, who contacted sponsors, and who created a blog to talk about the issue, but more importantly to keep in touch with all the friends she had made over the years playing internet bridge. Her story was extremely touching, given the very close friends she has made, and feared losing, when the pay-per-play system was introduced. However, the end result was good news for her and her fellow players (see note below).

Update/Correction from my colleague:  MSN didn’t actually indicate they were moving to pay-to-play, that was more speculation among her group. What MSN did indicate was that the system was being retired.

I speak often to colleagues about social media and the power of the Internet to drive change. But, more often than not, it is stories and “small” victories like these, that they experience themselves, that is the real driver of change:

Bridge on MSN Games

To our MSN Game Players:

As of June 19, 2006, MSN Games retired a series of classic games and features, including a few card, board, and CD-Rom games. This decision allows us to focus on growing and diversifying the gaming experience that our community has come to rely on for the last decade.

We have received an overwhelming response from the community about the retirement of these games, particularly Bridge. As a result, we’ve made the decision to keep Bridge available on our site for everyone to continue playing. We are currently working on a new Bridge game that will be available this summer.

When the time comes to make the change to our new Bridge, we’ll provide advance notice to you, our community.

MSN Games Team

H&K Canada’s marketing communications team recently completed a very successful product launch for one of our larger clients. For this program, the team opted to use the much talked-about MRP (Media Relations Rating Points) System by which to measure cost-per-contact and overall tone of coverage.

The results, in a nutshell, are as follows:

• Total articles/stories: 624
• Total impressions:  123,461,315
• Budget: $149,050.00
• Average Tone: 4.9 out of 5
• Average Rating: 3.5 out of 5
• Total Score: 84%
• Cost-per-Contact:  $0.00121

Some key take-aways:

Our definition of “success”? The client was thrilled by the result, primarily for the reason that the numbers above satisfied the requirements and expectations of the executives to which that person reported. This is important, as it speaks to my earlier comments re. mapping to the expectations of the clients themselves. If this is how they define success, then run with it.

The time and effort to load 624 articles into the system individually was considerable – days – and must be factored into how the measurement function is budgeted.

The 5 rating point criteria used for this client included:

1. Company/brand mention
2. Spokesperson Quote
3. Call-to-action
4. Key messages / product mention
5. 50+ words in broadcast segment / print / online

The ability to directly attribute the impact of PR on sales, although highly desired, is likely difficult given that this program was undertaken in partnership with a broader ad and online campaign.

So the next question is “what do we do with this?”… Is this now the benchmark against which future campaigns with this client are measured? One would hope not as this organization launches a wide variety of products annually, some more prominent than others. In such cases, clear expectations must be established at the outset. But, overall, the positive response from the client is a clear indicator of the impact meaningful metrics can have on demonstrating the value (as determined by the client) of PR.

I was reading Alexandra Samuel’s Social Signal blog the other day, and one of her entries caught my eye. Vancity, a BC-based credit union, has engaged the Social Signal team to help them roll out an online community-building exercise which is to be unveiled later this summer, and is looking for a blogger to support their online engagement activities.

According to Alexandra, “the project will create an online community where people in the Lower Mainland & Victoria can find information, tools and connections to inspire and support change in their own lives, their communities, and the world.”

Having scouted around the Vancity web site, I can see how such a program could easily fit into the credit union’s long-standing track record of community engagement. In fact, and based purely on what I’ve seen, I’m surprised they haven’t already moved in this direction. No matter, I’ll be looking forward to seeing what eventually comes from this.

Fast Company’s blogging of the 2006 Corante Innovative Marketing Conference, highlighted some excellent points re. the evolving nature of the PR profession: 

Some examples:

‘Be more honest and open… “The message that things didn’t go as well as planned is a shocking statement for a company to say, but it’s an honest statement…[companies should] show some humbleness but have confidence that the purity of that [humbleness] message should resonate,” said panelist John Moore.’

‘The bottom line is that there’s a danger that the changing face of communications is pushing PR toward irrelevancy, cautioned panelist Neville Hobson. What PR doesn’t seem to get is that they can no long completely control all of the messages nor all of the channels through which the messages are communicated.’

‘But at the same time PR people are not exerting control where they can — over themselves and the *way* they do things. Said Shel, “The public side of public relations is changing for sure, because the public is changing…but in a lot of the organizations where the CEO is blogging in most cases it’s not the public relations department that’s driving that, it’s the desire of the CEO, or the new media department.” ‘

The publishers of Ampersand, H&K’s global newsletter, recently asked me to comment on how social media tools are impacting the practice of public affairs and grassroots advocacy.  

What I came up with was this, which cites a number of studies and examples, including K. Daniel Glover’s excellent overview on the impact of blogging and politics published in the National Journal. If you haven’t already, you can read Glover’s piece here.

A more fullsome version will be presented by yours truly (the shameless self-promoter) to our public affairs group later this month.

I’ll keep you posted on their response.

A week or so ago I was interviewed by Tamara Cherry of the Toronto Star about corporate blogging, and character sites in particular… You can read the article (which appeared today) here.

In addition to my 23 words of fame (plus a paraphrase), Cherry also quotes Steve Rubel, Rick Bruner, and Dave Taylor (who you can also find here). And while the overall opinion among the collective punditry - about character blogs in general, and Bacardi’s betterthanbeer effort specifically – appears to be shared, the key point of the story was, I believe, only just touched on.

As Dave mentions in the article, and as I alluded to in my conversation with Tamara, a blog is really nothing more than an easy-to-use content management system that allows anyone to publish, well, whatever they want onto the web. It is, as Dave mentions, “just a tool.”

However, the real impact is the effectiveness by which a company uses that tool and, more importantly, how that usage is perceived and received by the target audience. In the end, does it matter that a bunch of PR folk and marketers are questioning the efforts of a company in using a blog to reach out to their customers? Not so much. What matters is if it hits a “sweet spot” with customers. If it doesn’t, you’ll hear about it.

Like Bruner, I tend to agree that Bacardi’s effort lacks what’s needed to make it stand out and have impact. Most certainly, I think it offends the blogging purists who believe a blog is exclusively a vehicle for conversation and engagement between ‘real’ people. I much prefer Guinness‘ effort – it’s transparent, it has ‘genuine’ personality, and you know who you’re dealing with. That said, let’s encourage experimentation… because the rules have yet to be written.

Molson Coors, AT&T, and Oracle did it. Ferrovial, BASF, Arcelor and Mittal are doing it. And in Canada, the use of dedicated bid sites, or bid-specific sections of corporate web sites, to target and channel information to win the hearts and minds of shareholders is now rampant in the hot and, increasingly hostile, minerals sector.

Here’s the dilly. Canadian-based Inco makes a friendly offer for Falconbridge, another Canadian-based copper and nickel company. To support its communication of the merits of the bid, Inco launches a transaction-specific site here. Swiss-based Xstrata, not to be outdone, launches its own hostile bid for Falconbridge, of which it is a minority owner, and proceeds to make its case for its bid here. Falconbridge, upon review of the Xstrata offer, re-affirms its support for Inco, and ensures that it’s own shareholders can read about that bid by including a link to the Inco site from its home page. Then along comes Teck Comminco, another Canadian firm, who for a variety of reasons decides to make a hostile offer for Inco, the company that started the whole thing in the first place and who is trying to fend off Xstrata in order to wed Falconbridge. To support its bid for Inco, Teck yesterday launches its own bid site here.

Amidst the brouhaha is the clear realization that the web has become an increasingly powerful and essential tool for reaching out and communicating directly to shareholders and influencers during times of critical change. Not only do dedicated transaction sites help bridge the divide between an organization and the shareholders to whom it has a responsibility to communicate, they enhance the communication function by separating transaction-specific information from the day-to-day marketing and IR functions.

Where then next? Like Oracle and others before it… and once the dust settles… using the web to communicate what happens after the honeymoon is over.  

So… try this scenario on for size… you’re a global PR agency and one office or region (let’s call it X) has been hired by a country or region representative of multinational Client A to manage PR for that region (but not others). Another office or region of the same PR agency (Y) has been hired by the country or region representative of Client B, a direct competitor to Client A, to conduct a PR campaign in region Y. In both regions, the PR counsellors advise their clients to reach out to evangelists and influencers who blog about the products that both Client A and B manufacture and sell.

Were this a traditional media outreach campaign, the issue I raise would be moot. The PR offices would conduct outreach to the business, trade and consumer media in their respective regions and life would carry on as it traditionally has.

But when you consider blogs, everything changes (or does it?). If I, in region Y, know that people who may be interested in Client B’s products rely on the insights of bloggers who hail from region X (assuming they speak the same language), then it would make sense for me to target them. But if the same bloggers are also being targeted by colleagues representing Client A… then I would think we have a problem (at least one of perception, if not worse).

If I were a prominent blogger and I received a pitch from the same PR agency for two competing clients, I’d think something was amiss… What would you think?

Is this even an issue? Is the solution, should one even be required, that PR agencies ensure pitches come from clients rather than from the PR agency itself? or Should we try to focus our efforts only on bloggers in the regions we are mandated to cover?

It’s always nice when a colleague of ours receives props for providing strong counsel – in this case in the form of a presentation to the recent IABC conference in St. John’s, Newfoundland.

Jo-Anne Polak, Our Senior VP of Crisis Communications, presented at the conference on the changing face of Media and its impact on Crisis Communications, and received kudos on a number of fronts, including from Katie Paine, one of North America’s leading PR measurement experts, who succinctly captured the theme of Jo-Anne’s talk – in times of crisis, it’s direct communications with your stakeholders that matters the most.

The Commission on Public Relations Measurement & Evaluation at the Institute for Public Relations recently published a new report on the “Perspectives on the ROI of Media Relations Publicity Efforts“. (thanks to the folks over at Corporate Engagement for highlighting it…)

It is an important read, as it outlines a number of approaches for measuring the ROI of media relations programs in the context of an independent activity, as well as within the context of a broader marketing campaign. Most importantly, it reinforces the importance of PR measurement to our business overall.

Why is demonstrating ROI so important today? According to the report’s authors – Fraser Likely, David Rockland and Mark Weiner – they suggest (and I hope they do not mind me pulling directly from their report): 

Resources are limited. In today’s economy, there is constant pressure on all marketing budgets, including media relations publicity. This means an organization will only invest in publicity activities that they know will make a direct contribution to increased revenues. Media relations publicity must prove it has an impact on the bottom line.

Scrutiny is increasing. Clients are increasingly holding their PR firms, departments, and consultants accountable for demonstrating public relations results. This accountability includes comparing those results against what was invested to obtain them. It is not enough to simply generate impressions through publicity; the quality of those impressions are equally important, as well as their impact on target audience behaviors and the resultant financial consequences.

Marketing has become more sophisticated. Public relations is expected to contribute to the execution of business strategy and thus the results obtained from that execution – not just create “noise” or “buzz” or “image.” The head of marketing is now asking: “Other areas supporting marketing campaigns can measure ROI, why not the PR function?” “What’s the ROI of our media relations publicity efforts in our marketing campaigns?” “Should I buy more or less advertising or media publicity, or invest it all in store promotions

Some additional and notable asides:

ROI is not the same as Cost-Effectiveness:
In its report, the Committee defines “return” as the “financial benefit derived by the organization… from the public relations or communications program or campaign.”  On the other hand, “Cost-effectiveness” as defined here is the “use of programs or campaigns to avoid costs in the first place by mitigating risk factors such as negative legislative, regulatory or legal actions through changes in stakeholder and/or organizational behaviours.”

On Ad Value Equivalency (AVEs):
AVE’s continue to be a much-debated measure, even among the Commission members: “…there are some on the Commission… who feel it is heresy. Other Commission members have done research to show the ability of AVEs to contribute to a ROI measure…” However, the conclusion is that “AVE’s really are a cost-effectiveness measure and not a true ROI measure.”

On measurement budgets as a percentage of overall budget:
According to the Commission: “generally speaking, measurement should be between 2% and 10% of a media relations budget.” 

On the ability to link media relations to sales and other financial results:
“This paper has not found that magic answer, but we are confident that there are models in existance that will work in the right circumstances and with the appropriate caveats.”

And that last point deserves to be highlighted. It is critically important, in my view, that the client fully understand at the outset that effective ROI measurement may require as much effort on their part as ours and that, without that effort, only so much can be achieved.

An example of this would be a US-based client we worked with recently who was attempting to market to a specific Canadian demographic in a specific region. Throughout the process we sought to ensure that, in tandem with our media relations efforts, mechanisms were put in place at various points of contact within the client’s operations that could be used to identify linkages between our efforts and the impact of those efforts on the client. In this case, we encouraged them to include a simple question: ‘where did you hear about us?’ on the back-end of every phone call received by a Canadian inquiring about the client and its services. Unfortunately, there was no real discipline in implementing this. As a result, and while we could correlate actual registrations during various campaign phases, we weren’t able to determine how many inquiries or leads the campaign generated overall.

But I also think that what is missing here is the notion of “Return on Expectation”. In the end, if the client is satisfied and feels value-for-money has been received. Is that not enough? Personally, I don’t believe it is. But it is an important consideration that we all need to examine more closely. Success to our clients may not always be what we think it should be. And understanding those factors can also play into the ROI/ROE equation.