Work

Strategy is critical to good PR. Without it, you might achieve results – but it can be something of a lottery. In an age of multiple platforms, stakeholders, media and corporate risks, the need to think strategically about a campaign is of paramount importance. Strategy-light reactive or proactive PR may have sufficed in the past, but no more. Indeed, my own communications journey reflects the changing approach. I set out with a tactical media relations mindset, primarily because that was what clients wanted me to focus on. Yet I soon understood that advance planning, the setting of meaningful objectives and measurement of progress were prerequisites for successful outcomes. For some time now, this has been the core of my PR philosophy. In my view, strategy and communications are inextricably linked. Indeed, I like to think of my company, Curzon PR, bringing McKinsey-style practices to the PR world.

My championing of strategic planning has been especially influenced by the nature of the often- complex international communications work that I do. I have an interest in and passion for global issues and themes – Curzon active in both developed and emerging markets, often straddling both, enabling clients in the former to access the latter and vice versa. Navigating unfamiliar business and media landscapes, particularly in the developing world, can be challenging, with thorough research and assessments of what is realistically possible crucial to delivering impactful PR campaigns. 

What use of strategy in an era of pandemic- and technology-related disruption, some might say. Well, I would argue that such factors only underline its critical role, as managing and mitigating uncertainty becomes a priority. In these volatile times, strategic plans need to be responsive to changing economic and political circumstances, agile enough to exploit new data and insights provided by cutting-edge social media tools and, critically, constantly under review – not least to anticipate future challenges. There are now myriad scenarios to consider and make provision for, from black swan events, technological disruption, cybercrime to reputational crises arising from data leaks and social media storms.  Strategies can no longer be book-ended, they must evolve to remain relevant and effective.

Moreover, strategy must not be the preserve of the board. Input needs to be sought from other internal stakeholders. Inclusivity should be a guiding principle. Seeking diverse opinions does not just reflect well on a company, it makes sense from a hard-headed business perspective. They may be on the lower rungs of the corporate ladder but canvassing the views of Gen-Zs and millennials can help to shape and stress-test strategic plans, as both groups heavily influence public discourse and consumer trends, notably the marketing issue of the day – ESG. And there is another reason for reaching out to them. Prospects of attracting and retaining talented Gen-Zs and millennials are significantly improved if strategies dovetail with their values and interests. Pay is not one of their over-riding employment motivations, working for a company they can identify with is.

It is rather ironic that a branch of communications synonymous with discreet influence should so often be associated with indiscretion. Done well public affairs is a very credible means of helping businesses achieve concrete objectives - yet over the years it has been undermined by numerous lobbying scandals. Which is why, I believe, public affairs must be more transparent in terms of process and more honest about its intentions. Not just to allay the concerns of critics, but to operate more effectively.

There should be an emphasis on trust – and key to building trust is the provision of accurate, evidence-based, balanced and timely information to all the various stakeholders in the public affairs ecosystem and the wider influencers, such as the media and think tanks. As a strategic communications professional and advocate, I firmly believe that my clients’ share of voice should extend across all the various stakeholder groups to maximise impact.

I strive to do this by adopting a holistic approach, which includes influencer mapping to help to optimise outreach as well as reputational risk analysis to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities that may prevent building broad support amongst stakeholders. An example of the latter might be to encourage a client to adopt and implement pro-ESG policies as a means of building relations with politicians and government officials, who these days are more inclined to listen to organisations that treat their staff, suppliers and customers well, and care for the environment.

But none of this happens overnight. Building relationships with multiple stakeholders to establish a coalition of support takes time, planning and resources. Yet there are a lot of misconceptions about the process and mechanics of influence. Many clients expect immediate results, mistakenly believing that public affairs professionals can exert critical influence at the drop of a hat.

As I do with my public relations work, I manage expectations from the start, explain the process of establishing stakeholder networks and seek to ensure clients are aligned with my holistic approach. Setting realistic, achievable goals is central to this approach, so too is having robust strategic communications tactics in place to deliver them, for instance plans for creating compelling content for conversations with the right people at the right time to influence outcomes.

I think the public affairs methodologies of old, often based on personal connections and networks, may have been appropriate for their time. But they are fraught with risks, as the scandals linked to them have underlined. The emergence of a more open and progressive society, in which commercial and political players are under so much scrutiny, requires a transparent approach, based on tried and tested communications strategies.

That’s not only important for businesses looking to influence outcomes. Public affairs, I would argue, has the potential to play a critical wider role: that of supporting democracy by facilitating dialogue between the public and government. This capacity alone, I believe, is a strong argument for a change in tactics.

Companies are more vulnerable to potentially business threats than ever before, yet in my experience they do not do enough to anticipate and prevent crises nor have in place sufficiently robust plans to mitigate their consequences. Too often, I am approached by executives tackling a firestorm that might have been avoided had a strategy assessing corporate risks and mitigations been in place. Crisis communications, perversely, is arguably one of most overlooked branches of communications, only seemingly becoming a priority when a crisis occurs – when it is almost too late.

I believe one of the reasons it is not ordinarily high up corporate agendas is that executives and indeed their marcoms teams are not fully aware of the multiple risks they face and the degree of their companies’ exposure. Even the most well-run firms have vulnerabilities and may be subject to unforeseen threats. The number and range of fault lines in the corporate world have grown significantly in recent years. Some are more visible than others, yet like a geophysicist monitoring signs of earthquake activity, they need to be identified and assessed to avert reputational disasters.

An upsurge in reputational risks in the last decade or so has been largely driven by, firstly, the digital revolution and, secondly, the emergence of more assertive employees, consumers and activists. Under the first trend, the expansion in unregulated social media channels has provided opportunities for those wanting to weaponise content through slanderous comments and disinformation, while technological disruption has destabilised markets, causing sudden falls in consumer confidence and revenue. The second trend has seen companies coming under more scrutiny, any ill-chosen public remark or other shortcoming concerning diversity, human rights as well as cultural and environmental issues are likely to be called out and amplified should they gain traction on social media, particularly if woke millennials and Gen-Zs are driving the criticism.

Given the heightened potential for things to go very wrong, business leaders I believe have a responsibly to ensure their companies have taken the necessary precautions to prevent crises or at the very least limit any harmful fallout. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Having worked on a wide range of crisis communications campaigns – from companies accused of wielding political influence to win contracts, charities charged with poor governance to business leaders facing social media storms over public comments – I have been able to develop robust crisis prevention and mitigation strategies.

Central to my approach is a thoroughgoing assessment of where things could go wrong before they have a chance to. In practice, this amounts to carrying out a risk audit and identifying reputational vulnerabilities. Out of that comes a risk register where potential threats are graded in terms of likelihood of occurrence and the scale of impact. Then, a risk reduction plan is developed, and a reporting mechanism created to monitor issues that could pose a threat. That would include the use of social media listening tools to track sentiment around issues of concern – a kind of early warning system, so they can be downgraded or upgraded over time.

Equally important is to know how to respond when threats come to pass. I’m a strong advocate of developing ‘what if’ scenarios, essentially mapping out the sequence of management team actions required to deal with various types of crises. This also involves crafting appropriate baseline copy and tone of voice instructions for senior spokespeople, so that they can respond effectively to information requests from media and other stakeholders. It is crucial preparation because when a crisis strikes time is of the essence – knowing what steps to take and avoiding lengthy approval processes optimises organisational response.