Today marks a special day in the journey of my blogging, and indeed online, journey. After packing up the virtual moving boxes and finding a new home, justanotherPR has moved to a new address.

The move comes as the blog started as part of my Master’s requirement, experiences amazing support and interaction from a community of like-minded and smart people – you.

Six months on, and justanotherPR has had 188 comments from 56 posts, more than 10,000 visitors and most importantly, hearty discussion and debate on all things communications, marketing, public relations and social media.

It has amazed and scared me, having a platform to share ideas and opinions. Your support and continued interaction through discussing content here has been nothing short of enjoyable.

Even when I’ve pushed the envelope, and put some offside with my choice of language and writing style you’ve continued to come back and join the debate. Thank you.

So, it is with this post that I say goodbye to my old wordpress.com blog, and hello to the wonderful world of self-hosting at www.justanotherprblog.com

I would like to make special mention to Ben Rogers (@plasmaegg) and Tim (@preperat). Ben and Tim selflessly worked with me over the weekend to get my new home set up with Tim staying up to 4am Sunday with me to fix coding issues. It seemed whenever Tim fixed something, I’d go in and break it again only to have him fix it yet again.

The lesson? I’m not a web-developer by any sense of the imagination, but I have a new found respect for this skill!

Unfortunately, with my less than perfect website skills I haven’t been able to automatically transfer you (subscribers) to the new feed. If you want to join me on the next stage of justanotherPR, can you do me a little favour please and subscribe here? I know this is tiresome, and I’m expecting to lose a lot of you. I had thought if I offered some kind of alcoholic bribe that might encourage you to update your subscription…. but I didn’t get time. So here’s a video for your viewing pleasure instead

Marketing Magazine's 2010 Media Survival Guide

This is the question Marketing Magazine asked for its annual 2010 Media Survival Guide.

One of 5 PR professionals to respond, interestingly I am the only one currently working in-house. My response is below, however, I urge you to go out and get this resource from your local newsagent. It has amazing articles from some of Australia’s biggest thought-leaders in the areas of PR, marketing, digital and media.

PR, I would argue, is one of the more accountable disciplines. Marketing is cut and dry – website visits, calls to the customer service number, product sales, all lead to an accountable bottom line: dollars.

Public relations as a function is much more complex – it’s more about human relations. The accountability lies not only with the CEO, but with the legal department, the finance department, employees and the external public.

Increasingly, Australian public relations practitioners are more cerebral with our measurement, with a myriad of outcomes including sentiment, cut-through, recall and action, including revenue and other outcomes, which translate to the bottom line. This measurement is costly and time-consuming.

One way we as a profession can remain accountable is to have adequate measurement budgets as part of our business unit or client brief. In addition to this adequate budget, it is a disservice for public relations to be treated as a value-add to marketing or advertising within an organisation.

PR is a management function which evaluates public attitudes, identifies the policies and procedures of an individual or an organsation with the public interest, and plans and executes a program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance.

It should in fact umbrella marketing and advertising in an organisation. Public relations cannot simply be intertwined with these units. That would be akin to putting the cart before the horse.

The ethos of true public relations defines and guides every aspect of an organisation, from its employee engagement strategy to its marketing and customer service.

Public relations in its true sense, as a strategic management function, informs your marketing, employee engagement, sale and other external outputs.

…so what do you think? Should Public Relations umbrella marketing and advertising and how can PR increase accountability?

Before I start, I want to make it clear that I do not have an opinion on this particular case at this stage due to not being able to locate the material in question (despite my best internet trawling efforts). I still however,  feel the issue of astroturfing is an important one to cover.

But. As reported this week, this is the story of astroturfing: the agency, the competitors and the apology.

First appearing in the West Australian news on 10 November 2009, this  advertisement is pretty full on. (click for larger view)

It’s pretty clear that Midland Bricks (a subsidiary of Boral) are admitting their role in creating a faux DVD and engaging with lobbyists to sway a political and community consultative decision process in which its competitor, BGC Australia, were engaged in to build a new (and competing) brickworks at Perth Airport.

The story is pretty sordid. Basically, BGC Australia were buying bricks from Midland to keep up with their demand, and wanted to build a brickworks on Commonwealth land adjacent to Perth Airport so that they could obviously save money, and stop the reliance on Midland. But Midland, with established brickworks in WA didn’t want to lose their source of income from BGC and end up with a competitor.

In 2006, Midland Brick faced legal action over a campaign to block BGC’s planned $A100m Perth brick plant. The ‘campaign’ was fronted  by a well-known WA environmental lobbyist Rob Greenwood and included a DVD titled ‘A Brickwork in the wrong place’ as well as leaflets and letters to politicians. BGC secured an order from the Supreme Court of Western Australia requiring Professional Public Relations to disclose who funded a DVD which the court agreed contained misleading information about BGC’s brickworks proposal for land at Perth Airport, and could have defamed the company.

Sidenote: read the order. It’s fascinating but also sets grounds for legal precedent that if you are considering any form of astroturfing, you will be required to disclose the client.

The Astroturfing

Although relatively uncommon in Australia, astroturfing is a scourge on public relations. It is defined as:

The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt (“outreach”, “awareness”, etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual pushing a personal agenda or highly organized professional groups with financial backing from large corporations, unions, non-profits, or activist organizations. Very often the efforts are conducted by political consultants who also specialize in opposition research.

Now, astroturfing can actually appear in a few forms including, with the advent of online forums, digital misrepresentation and comments being posted under false pretenses. A recent example (albeit not as sinister) is stacking over at the mUmBRELLA comment thread.

But our professional association, the Public Relations Institute of Association – PRIA – has a pretty clear position on it. It’s not welcome. You can read their position here.

They also have a registered consultancy list, where public relations consultancies can receive reputational benefits and increased referrals by agreeing to abide by the Code of Practice. Among the various ethical and conduct guides is:

Accepts a positive duty to observe the highest standards in its business practice and in the practice of public relations; promote the benefits of good public relations practice in all dealings; and improve the general understanding of professional public relations practice.

The Agency:

Professional Public Relations (PPR) is a registered consultancy of the PRIA. They are also a highly respected, and successful large public relations agency in the WPP family. They have a history of achievement in mitigating contentious and complex issues-based communications including winning a Golden World Award from the International Public Relations Association for an Agricultural Chemical Manufacture Issue Management campaign for Bayer Australia.

PPR are pretty upfront with the values that guide their operations: accountability and Integrity are listed as what they stride for.

The fall out:

It’s still pretty hazy and I haven’t located the DVD or leaflets yet. But I’ve found council minutes, a Commonwealth Government hansard and speech and various media releases, media stories and articles covering the issue from mid- 2005 through to 2006. It looks like the campaign, its messaging (children will die tone) and its tools (the DVD and letters) were pretty wide-spread and adopted by political and community heavy-weights.

It seems to me, that the issue and the community action would have naturally evolved what with such a passionate and agitated local residents group, and the ongoing issue of brickworks being placed in residential areas. Understanding as a lobbyist and as a consultancy, that this level of agitation would organically grow to a grass-roots campaign and not need propaganda funded by a competitor with business interests in the decision, is the lesson.

Oh, and if you have astroturfed or considering it as a course of action, you’re going to get caught out. People are too cynical and not at all trusting these days.

]]> http://justanotherprblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/astroturfing-the-agency-the-competitors-and-the-apology/feed/ 2 justanotherprblog http://justanotherprblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/seanchai-the-tradition-of-storytelling-and-its-link-to-business/ http://justanotherprblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/seanchai-the-tradition-of-storytelling-and-its-link-to-business/#comments Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:01:07 +0000 justanotherprblog http://justanotherprblog.wordpress.com/?p=744 ]]>

A guest post by Gavin Costello (Franksting):

@Franksting

In Irish tradition, there is the concept of the ‘Seanchaí‘.

Basically a storyteller, but also the holder of knowledge in Society down through the ages. The Oral Tradition, as it were, was once seen as just Stories, but I’m of the impression, the longer archaeology gets better at identifying things, many so-called ‘legends’ actually become real (Note, if I was a real journalist, I would look for a link to prove this). I’m sure most societies have a similar tradition.

While there would generally only be one Storyteller in a village or area, I imagine, he also had success/fail considerations. I mean if the stories he told were boring, or his tone of voice was that of a footballer, now retired, who was used as a TV commentator because of his abilities on the field, then he’d have to hand the baton over quicksmart to the young fella in the next field wouldn’t he? Either that or his listeners would be heading down to the next village to listen to Richie Benaud’s dulcet tones instead, right?

As I think about that, I see parallels between the longevity of those who tell stories in whatever traditions, and the varying successes of Businesses depending on what they are selling and then how they are engaging with their Customers.

To put it simply, not only did the locals want to listen to the Stories, they also needed to LIKE YOUR COMPANY.

If you apply that then to any company who wants to properly serve their customers, don’t they have to LIKE you, to WANT to listen to you?

Even if they have no option and they HAVE TO use your services, but you don’t talk with them in a way that is beneficial to them, why would they want to listen to you?

And if they do like your services, but they don’t like you, not only will they not listen to you, but most likely they will also search out alternatives as soon as they become available.

But let’s go further, if you talk about having a ‘conversation’ with your customer (I’m starting to hate the use of that term to describe what should be basic customer service), but the ‘conversation’ isn’t open, then what value does it have?

And what if you, in the day-to-day operations of your organisation, don’t create an environment where everyone feels they can partake in a fireside chat about the company or even believes in the customer facing presentation, then what chances have you of getting your stories told by them?

As a further challenge. Do companies really understand, as Marilyn Pratt from SAP says in her excellent presentation on Killing Communities (Hat Tip to Gavin Heaton for drawing this to my attention at his Blog); developing products or services should be simply about:

“…what value it brings to them, not what money it brings us.”

Because if the only reason you are developing and selling anything is to make a buck, chances are your opportunity will be short-lived – even if you do make a killing.

For your customers won’t like you, because not only are you not interested in delivering THEM value, if you try to talk to them about the value and service you are providing them, it’ll be a story they won’t want to hear and they’ll go to the Village down the road to listen to the other fella instead.

PR is manipulative. We should own them. I don’t trust them.

So we’re in general agreement? We take PR with a grain of salt?

A PR plan is only worth one page.

The dreaded PR should go somewhere in the marketing mix.

What’s the cheapest in the marketing mix? PR. You can get free coverage just by sending a media release. You can do it yourself in an hour.

the dreaded PR: It’s manipulative and only good for media

If you follow my Twitter feed you might have seen my tweets on Friday about a presenter’s views on PR. If you don’t follow my Twitter account, why not? Follow me now.

The hour and a half presentation was delivered to a room of 20 or so lovely people attending the FIA’s Skills 2 fundraising course. This course is an intensive 3-day stream where fundraisers are up skilled in the ways to raise money and increase their success for their varying NFPs. Of course, as well as elements such as donor management and prospect research, there is a marketing and communications module.

The marketing and communications module is in my view, one of the most important for these participants. Many of who don’t have experience in basic public relations or marketing, and yet understand the relationship between branding and revenue generation.

So it was with great regret that the module turned out to be a fucking PR bashing, with personal and frankly, ill-informed views being lapped up by my course colleagues.

Before I go on, I will point out the facilitator, Kristofer Rogers, had some great insights to share to the group around marketing and what he called ‘communications’. The irony is that what he was talking about was actually what I and others understand to be strategic public relations.

But his perception was that PR was a separate, and inferior element in the marketing mix. He, as a marketer, asserted that PR was only good for media relations, and that the rest was manipulation and deception.

He even fucking brought out the recent Virgin Blue email error (you know, how they accidentally emailed their entire database with a Gold upgrade notification, only to correct it a couple of hours later. This database was 2 million people) and asked how many thought it was a PR stunt. A large proportion of the room put their hands up.

For Fucks Sake.

Now, hear this marketer. PR is not just about getting free coverage by sending a media release, which you can do yourself. I’ve posted about that here.

And, your views on PR as a manipulative, inauthentic way of communicating with people (whether they are donors, or any other stakeholders) is fucking ridiculous and to be frank, quite 1980’s.

If you want to throw stones, let’s look at marketing shall we?

Who invented impulse buying strategies, which encourages people (often who can least afford it) to buy items (often useless and completely not needed) on impulse?

Where did pester power come from? There are some very real questions around the ethics of advertising and marketing to children, and you just have to watch ‘Consuming Kids’ to be concerned. Another one I saw was ‘How the kids took over’. “The marketing assault is aimed not only at getting children to spend. Even companies who market adult products, such as cars, are enlisting children to help persuade their parents to buy the “right” brand. So how did the kids achieve such pull, and where is it leading?”

Marketing makes us fat. Would you really buy all that junk food, if you weren’t swamped in marketing of that perfect burger or how Coke Zero will improve your life?

See how easy it is to put out pretty wild claims, find a link or paper to support it and feel better about myself?

But, really, what this comes down to is two things:

1. Marketing and public relations are increasingly merging into one discipline
2. Public relations professionals need to stand up and correct shitheads that propagate our bad image.

Let’s look at marketing and public relations merging into a super power that will, I don’t doubt, take over the world one conversation at a time.

It’s only natural for disciplines to evolve such as public relations moving from the focus on media relations, to a new strategic management function focusing on two-way relationships with your publics.

As has marketing, which, as wikipedia explains, has undergone similar evolution including:

Robert Bartels in The History of Marketing Thought’ categorised the development of marketing theory decade by decade from the beginning of the 20th century thus:

• 1900s: discovery of basic concepts and their exploration
• 1910s: conceptualisation, classification and definition of terms
• 1920s: integration on the basis of principles
• 1930s: development of specialisation and variation in theory
• 1940s: reappraisal in the light of new demands and a more scientific approach
• 1950s: reconceptualisation in the light of managerialism, social development and quantitative approaches
• 1960s: differentiation on bases such as managerialism, holism, environmentalism, systems, and internationalism
• 1970s: socialisation; the adaptation of marketing to social change

With the growth in importance of marketing departments and their associated marketing managers, the field has become ripe for the propagation of management fads which do not always lend themselves to periodization.

The emerging field of marcomms is where the future of both marketing and public relations is.

Public Relations cannot operate without a marketing slant, and marketing increasingly understands that the theory of public relations is critical to an integrated and successful business. The argument needs to move away from my dick is bigger than yours, or who is the boss PR or marketing, and more into a symbiotic partnership.

To discount the benefits of either field is detrimental to achieving your objectives whether they are to sell more wine, or to raise funds or even to win your seat. Stop with the childish warring, and start asking yourself how you can leverage the ‘opposition’ to your advantage.

Marketers like Kristofer, need to let go of the power struggle and embrace change. Working with your strategic public relations professionals is not going to hurt your bottom dollar, but it might bruise your ego in the short-term.

Public relations needs to stand up and be heard

Yep I’m whining here about this particular marketer. But his views, sadly, are not unique. I’ve posted here about the need for PR to re-brand ourselves.

Other highly knowledgeable and experienced public relations professionals have also posted their views on the benefits and strategic outcomes PR can bring. Have a read of Trevor Young’s post here, and Craig Pearce’s insightful post here.

If that’s not enough for you, check out the PRIA’s wealth of knowledge here.

Now that you’re informed about what PR actually is, let’s explore how we can change perceptions.

It’s up to us to challenge and question people who hold ill-informed and naïve views. I did on Friday, in a passive way as I understood the 20 people there wouldn’t appreciate a standing debate over what is and isn’t public relations vs marketing.

However, I spoke with the FIA representative at the course, and will follow it up formally with them around liaising with the PRIA so they can understand the value of public relations in the fundraising mix. This may make a difference and influence their choice of trainers in the future.

But it is also up to all of us to carry the flag. If you’re aware of misconceptions or down right bullshit, why don’t you challenge it? Why don’t you advocate for what you and your job can really achieve?

At the end of the day though, this won’t change every person’s views on our industry. We need to be smarter about it. We need to outsmart the marketers and take over the world, one dodgy conference presenter at a time.

Authenticity is defined as:

au·then·tic·i·ty

n. The quality or condition of being authentic, trustworthy, or genuine.

So, what does this really mean and why is it up to public relations professionals to be the custodians of it?

At its most basic sense, authenticity implies ‘doing what you say, and saying what you do’. This is true for all elements of business and communications. So who is there to ensure that companies and people are genuine and trustworthy? PR baby, PR.

When you think of the elements that PR are involved in, in a business, it is only natural that we take on the role of custodians of authenticity. From the very beginning in developing the internal communications strategy, crafting the brand attributes and how this translates to every aspect of the operations, through to the external communications, media relations and even social media strategies. This is the opportunity to instill the ‘doing what you say, and saying what you do’ modus operandi.

It’s a natural extension of our evolution kids

As  public relations professionals, we are ultimately responsible for the ‘public’ and the ‘relations’ of our client, our organisation or our Minister. Now we have heard from people like Brian Solis about the new (well, slightly old now) putting the public back into public relations, and the theory of our practice including focusing on the two-way model of communications first advocated by Grunig. He has said:

I think public relations is headed in two incompatible directions… I call these two competing approaches to public relations the symbolic, interpretive, paradigm and the strategic management, behavioral, paradigm.

Now, the second assertion is where I’m heading.

All of this is only positive for our industry, particularly if it is embraced and implemented by each and every one of us flacks. However, it feels for me, there is a missing link which underpins this theory and ethos. Authenticity.

Every element of successful and smart public relations involves authenticity:

Think about it. When you’re drafting a media release announcing some new, exciting development, you wouldn’t lie or massage the facts and figures would you? Or what about when you’re looking at community consultation and setting your parameters, you wouldn’t tell your consultees they have a choice in something that is already set in stone, would you?

Even online, in this increasingly digital age, you wouldn’t post something that was wrong, or comment on something under a false identity, would you? As Daniel Young has said, “Trust is the currency of social media; it forms the basis of our relationships (virtual and real). It is worthy of protection.”

Most of this, we just take for granted. I suspect though, we act in this way to avoid the negative fall-out if we were to be found out. We know people, publics and consumers are increasingly wary and cynical about companies, activities and even stunts. We know we are under a microscope and to risk our reputation would be to risk our sustainability in this current economic climate. But what I’m suggesting, or perhaps pleading, is that we start advocating for authenticity to our peers and to our bosses.

What happens if we don’t act authentically?

Well… close your eyes. I know you can think of a recent case study of a brand or person who has been caught out in less than genuine or trustworthy actions. Take for instance, today’s revelation that Obama doesn’t author his own tweets. Julie Posetti has been very vocal in her advocacy for authenticity in Twitter use, and social media in general, including suggesting (which I agree with) having people of influence or brands declare when or if they are authored by a ghost writer, and to attribute tweets or posts accordingly.

It is easy to spot a non-genuine act or communication. And when we as a profession, are aiming to build trust, respect and currency with our publics, to act in a non-authentic way is to undo all of our effort and success. And, for what it is worth, I argue that one mistake is enough to create a disengaged and cynical audience. Others, like Nathan Bush who I respect immensely, argues it doesn’t last forever. But Australians in particular, are a stubborn bunch and we hold grudges. We don’t forget, especially when we feel we’ve been lied to.

So, what is my thought-vomit trying to allude to?

Public relations, by necessity and theory, should be the custodians of authenticity. We have the opportunity and the ethical requirement to not only ensure that all communications are genuine, trustworthy, and authentic, but to educate and empower our clients or our CEOs to embrace this in all aspect of business. Do what you say, and say what you do.

So what do you think? Are public relations professionals the custodians of authenticity? Are we the moral compass of an organisation?

I was watching television last night and saw an advertisement which really stood out for me. It stood out because it put me off. This advertisement left me feeling cynical and a little pissed that an organisation who, in the past, has had great success in funny and to-the-point campaigns, was now leveraging fear to sell a product.

The ad in question is promoting eye tests at OPSM. But this is how they chose to sell the message:

The reason I’m left with a soapy taste is not so much the merits of the message. Road safety is extremely important and Governments including the Victorian road agency TAC spend a lot of money and time, with carefully researched social marketing campaigns, to change behaviour on our roads and keep the road toll down.

No, it’s the cynicism I’m left with. I don’t believe OPSM are truly communicating a community service. I think they’re leveraging fear to sell eye tests, and presumably, glasses.

It seems this is a new campaign, with their YouTube channel only just uploaded in the last two hours.

This is another example of their previous advertising. No fear, no thinly veiled community announcements, just a clean, fun sales message.

So what do think? Great community service or a low way to sell glasses? Am I being too sensitive?

]]> http://justanotherprblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/community-service-or-a-low-way-to-sell-glasses/feed/ 2 justanotherprblog http://justanotherprblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/what-do-you-do-if-youre-the-target-of-an-aggressive-lobbying-campaign-a-case-study/ http://justanotherprblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/what-do-you-do-if-youre-the-target-of-an-aggressive-lobbying-campaign-a-case-study/#comments Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:50:14 +0000 justanotherprblog http://justanotherprblog.wordpress.com/?p=685 ]]>

This morning I received a tip-off on an interesting development from a company who had been the target of an aggressive, and very public, lobbying campaign by Greenpeace.

This case study, and another one, My Green Apple, have in my opinion displayed the opportunities that a well mitigated crisis communications plan can provide. Instead of running and hiding, which a lot of companies do when faced with a public witch hunt, these two companies listened and responded in a positive and mature corporate way. Let’s look at them.

Timberland stands up to criticism, and ends up looking the hero

Faced with an assault of more than 65,000 template letters from green activists, consumers and members of a genuinely concerned community, Timberland had two options. Run and hide, and don’t respond to the increasingly ferocious lobbying of perhaps the world’s biggest and most trusted green group, Greenpeace, or stand up and listen to the concerns and action them in a mutually beneficial and mature manner. Timberland took the latter option and in turn has proven that a crisis can be a PR dream.

Now, the criticism and resulting public lobbying from Greenpeace was a result of an investigation in which Timberland were implicated as being unwitting contributors to the destruction of the Amazon for cattle farming. Timberland were buying 7 per cent of their leather for their products, from cows who were destroying the world’s most vulnerable forest through grazing.

As a result, Timberland got on the radar of Greenpeace, along with other companies such as Adidas/Reebok and Nike to name a few. This was secondary to the main villains, being the actual cattle farmers Bertin, JBS and Marfrig (interestingly, part-owned by the Brazilian Government).

Taking the road less travelled

It would have been easy for Timberland to play dumb, to cry foul and essentially ignore the brand assault enveloping their operations. Afterall, the PR ’spin’ would have been easy. Can’t you imagine them issuing a media release pleading ignorance and pushing back to their supplier, Bertin, in terms of laying the blame?

Then, behind closed doors, you can picture the discussions with Bertin. “Mate, you have to take this heat. It’s your cows, your farming, your operation. We just buy your leather.”

But Timberland have taken the road less travelled, faced up to the crisis, and in turn, have looked a hero. Why?

Turning the crisis into an opportunity

Timberland have done two things right. They have acknowledged the concerns of the lobbyists and their customers, and have addressed them. Check out their CEO, Jeff Swartz, responding in his blog here.

Not only has Timberland engaged with their supplier, Bertin, to develop a plan that would answer the challenge, but they have managed to respond to the public criticism with a mature corporate tone which places them as the hero. They are using their small leveraging currency to engage with Bertin and other organisations such as Nike, to look at their business operations in the Amazon.  In fact, Bertin have just announced they are no longer sourcing cattle from protected areas of the Amazon.

Confronting the crisis head-on

What interests me is the fact they have confronted the crisis head-on. They have facilitated a major organisation to look at the issue, they have facilitated face-to-face meetings with the villain (Bertin) and the agitator (Greenpeace) and they have put the issue on a major stakeholder’s agenda (the Leather Working Group).

In addition, Timberland have created a positive public relations opportunity out of this action. The CEO blog announcing this action, the covering letter distributed to all 65,000 consumers who wrote to Timberland, and the prominent placement in their CSR website, are all big wins.

The tone in the CEO blog is also interesting. A couple of paragraphs I think are spot on include:

So when 65,000 new friends introduce themselves to your e-mailbox in a week, endlessly resending a form letter written by Greenpeace accusing your company of being part of the deforestation of the precious ecosystem called the Amazon rainforest, what would you do?

To understand Greenpeace’s assertion that our business practice directly leads to deforestation in the Amazon, you’ve first got to know that it is cattle ranching that is causing the deforestation — ranchers cutting down the forest in order to allow livestock to graze. That livestock is raised primarily for tailgate hotdogs or your mom’s meatloaf recipe — not for leather.

So in other words, wow you guys are persistent and we’re listening. Oh, and it’s not our fault.

No more leather from Brazil, no more issues with tracing hides which may have come from cows grazing in deforested areas of the Amazon rainforest.  We’re only talking about 7% of our production — so cut and run, right?

Tempting, but not the right thing to do. Disengaging would have solved OUR problem — no more headaches or emails from angry activists — but would do nothing to solve the problem of deforestation.  Even as we fumed at the way Greenpeace had approached this issue we asked ourselves, what is the responsible thing to do?  Do we walk away and let the beef processors sort this out with Greenpeace, or do we risk further ire, by staying in the conversation and engaging the leather tanner and the beef processor to solve the real environmental challenge?  What would you choose to do?

Or, look we are a really small client of Bertin and you have placed us in an untenable position, but…

We decided to stay engaged.  We pressed our Brazilian leather supplier, Bertin, for a plan that would answer the challenge posed — demonstrate that the cattle grazing in the field were not contributing to deforestation.  Find a way to ensure trace-ability back into the value chain — now.

For its part, Greenpeace has done an outstanding job gathering data, creating a complete and compelling case for the issue, and mobilizing its tens of thousands of supporters to call for action from brands like ours on an issue they care about.  Their effort has driven change into the system.  We applaud their activism, even as we wish next time—and there will be a next time, in the complex global value chain — they would seek to engage brands like ours before they pull the “let’s confront ‘em” lever.

We’re the hero, and we’re impressed that Greenpeace had the balls to push us.  And, finally..

Business can be a force for positive environmental change … collaboration yields more powerful outcomes than the effort of one … learnings reinforced by our experience to date on the Amazon deforestation issue.  We’re not closing the book on this topic yet – we’ll continue to monitor progress through regular reports from Bertin and through our work with the LWG and HWG, and we’ll continue to share milestones and challenges with you here on Earthkeepers.

CEO thanks Greenpeace for full frontal email assault?  Next thing you know, world leaders will actually come up with a meaningful global agreement at Copenhagen…

So, what are the key insights into this case study?

• Timberland have managed to salvage their business relationship with Bertin, by engaging with them, showing them how they can also evoke change in a positive manner, and then credit Bertin in their communications
• The CEO, and Timberland as an organisation, have leveraged the crisis as an opportunity to display good corporate citizenship without actually losing any income or business
• Timberland have approached the PR crisis with a mature corporate voice, and have responded publicly in a tone which mitigates Greenpeace’s concerns. They have put a human face to the response (CEO) and have managed to communicate some pretty convincing business messages
• Instead of an attack on Greenpeace, Timberland have managed to engage with them, and in a side-ways slap, highlighted how  they thought it was unfair that Greenpeace targeted them, via the CEO blog
• The CEO responded to each and every one of the 65,000 agitators via the same mechanism they lobbied to Timberland – through a personalised email
• Greenpeace have commended Timberland’s response and actions, providing a PR win-win. Timberland looks good, and Greenpeace look like a victor.

So, what do you think? Would your company have the balls to confront the PR crisis head-on and come out looking like the hero? And, are you prepared for an assault of this size, by the likes of Greenpeace?

Today is an important day.

No, it’s not my birthday, that’s in December if you want to put it in your calendar. This is far more important and in need of your support.

You see, today is the launch of The Perfect Gift for a Man.

Back in July of this year, I wrote a post about my brother for #manweek.

Writing the story of my baby brother struggling to find himself, and the impact of his struggles on his loved ones, was one of the hardest things I’ve done.

To put his story, and mine, into words and post it on the world-wide-web was incredibly difficult. Not only did I have a fear of exposing his plight to the strangers and friends who frequent my blog, but the biggest fear was the actual process of writing.

I feared my ability to tell his story. I feared my ability to capture the strength he had. I feared not being able to achieve what, ultimately, I wanted to achieve – to show young men and women, that it can be ok.

It actually didn’t take too long to put the words onto the screen when I drafted the post. Little did I realise, I had the words swimming around my head and heart waiting to fall into prose. Like a classic riff that you know instinctively, typing the story of my brother came with ease.

It was the draft post staring at me on the screen that I had the most trouble with. It’s amazing the sea of guilt and apprehension one feels when they have left themselves so bare. Guilt because my brother’s story is nothing special. We know 1 in 4 young Australians will experience a mental health issue in the next twelve months.

And my apprehension was actually my selfishness. Selfishness that I didn’t want to be judged. I didn’t want my brother to be judged.

As a woman, I fear we take the men in our lives for granted. We take the line that boys don’t cry. Men shouldn’t show weakness, and emotional troubles are weaknesses.

But as a woman, I implore you to reject this notion. We can make a difference to the tragedy that is suicide in this country. We can help.

Speak to your brother, your husband, your son or your father. Ask them how they are. Let them know that it is ok to cry. Buy this book and give it to the man or men in your life. Show them the stories of every day people who have taken the courage to share their journey.

But most importantly, show them that there is help available, and it doesn’t make them any less of a man to ask. In fact in my eyes, in yours and in theirs, it makes them more of a man.

You can read my brother’s story, and 29 other brave and amazing stories in the Perfect Gift for a Man

This book, The Perfect Gift for a Man, is written about men, for men. And as such, we wanted to reflect the life of a man – the good, the difficult, the challenging and the astounding.

The amazing thing is, that without any particular orchestration on our part, the topics chosen by our authors fell into the various stages that we experience as we grow and age – Becoming a Man, Respect (gaining and giving), Fragility, Fatherhood and Loss. The table of contents can be seen below, along with some of the book’s preliminary pages.

We believe that these stories will get under your skin – just as they did with us. We trust that they will be stories you will want to share with the men in your life – with your brothers, uncles, fathers and sons. With your friends and family. The book will be available for purchase on Wednesday, October 26, 2009.

Check out the social media release here. And importantly, go buy the book here.

Why The Perfect Gift for a Man is so important

In Australia, young men commit suicide at more than three times the rate of women of the same age. Further, mental illness and drug and alcohol dependency is severely affecting men aged 16-24.

In mid-2009, The Inspire Foundation launched the #Manweek campaign to raise awareness of these issues. A number of Australian bloggers supported this campaign, sharing their thoughts, challenges and experiences with their readers.

Each of these stories was a gift – sometimes painful to write, always astounding to read. They got under our skin, and as the campaign ended, we felt that the campaign had only just scratched the surface. We wanted to take these stories and share them with others – with our brothers, fathers and uncles.

With our friends and families.

This book is the result. Please buy it for the men in your life.

All proceeds go to The Inspire Foundation.

We think it is the perfect gift.

And I do too. Check it. And buy it.

]]> http://justanotherprblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/boys-can-cry-a-journey-for-the-perfect-gift-for-a-man/feed/ 0 justanotherprblog cover-199x300 http://justanotherprblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/6-seconds-and-a-bit-of-dirty-talk-choosing-a-gym/ http://justanotherprblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/6-seconds-and-a-bit-of-dirty-talk-choosing-a-gym/#comments Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:32:57 +0000 justanotherprblog http://justanotherprblog.wordpress.com/?p=652 ]]>

What’s the difference between two female-only gym’s marketing point of differences (POD)? 60 seconds. Oh and a bit of dirty talk.

I am currently researching options to get fit in my new suburb (yes stalkers, I now live in Richmond) and came across two promising chick gyms.

Now I’ve heard horror stories on Fitness First, and I’ve heard bad things about Genesis. I’ve also got a complex about being exposed to massively ripped beefcakes sitting in front of the mirror pumping iron. Mainly because I really don’t think I’ll get anything done. I’d be too distracted and there is a potential for injury. So I want to feel comfortable while sweating, you know, leave my dignity at the door and be safe?

Two options are available for me in Richmond and they both sound, look and smell the same. We have Contours in the right corner and Curves in the left. Both offer female-only, comfortable and non-confrontational ways to get fit. Tick and tick.

But amusingly, they both also offer a very specific type of workout. A timed, cross circuit strength and cardio workout. Awesome I think to myself. This is sounding like something I can cope with.

Even more amusingly, they both don’t like each other and have entered into that little marketing war, that as Tim points out, is a little like Something about Mary in “Hitchhiker: “You heard of this thing the 8 minute abs?” Ted: “Yeah, sure 8 minute abs yeah, the exercise video.” Hitchhiker: “Yeah, well this is going to blow that right out of the water. Listen to this, 7 minute abs.”

This is the marketing POD from Curves:

Dedicated to women’s fitness, Curves offers a proven 30-minute workout that combines strength training and sustained cardiovascular activity through safe and effective hydraulic resistance.

This is the marketing POD from Contours:

// Our innovative exercise workout takes just 29 minutes from start to finish, including warm up and stretching. So you’re in and out in no time. And unlike some other gyms, we use real weights, so you’ll see real results.

So how is a girl to choose? That one minute makes all the difference. Really it does.

But, instead of agonising over 60 seconds, I might let their customer experience dictate who I eventually sign up with. After all, it’s not what happens in 60 seconds, it’s about how good it was.. right?