Communications as Ikor

좋은 연설문을 읽는 아침..

 

세계적으로 가장 Visionary한 PR 에이전시 경영자인 대행사 Ketchum의 David R. Drobis 회장님이 하신 최근(지난주 금요일) 연설문입니다.

매년 ICCO에서 연설을 하시는데, 그가 말씀하시는 것이 곳 한해 전세계 에이전시계의 큰 비전이 되곤합니다. 소중한 연설문.. 관심있으신 ae분들 차근차근 읽어 보셔도 좋을듯… ^^

저는 개인적으로 지금은 pr이 기존 “Relationship Building”의 역할에서 “Confidence Building”으로 변해야 할 때라는 구절이 인상깊었습니다. 또한 Globaliztion이라는 이슈에 대한 Strategic Communication Plan을 몸소 설명하시는 열정이 무척 맘에 듭니다.

우리 모든 PR AE분들의 건승하심을 위해…

————————————————————

“The New Global Imperative for Public Relations”
Speech by David R. Drobis, senior partner/chairman, Ketchum

ICCO Global Crossfire Summit
November 16, 2001

Good morning.

It is great to be here and to have the opportunity to kick off this extremely important communications summit. We’re delighted that some of the most influential people in our business from all over the world could come together in these very turbulent times. And it is this collective experience, wisdom and thought-leadership that has gathered here that makes this meeting such an exciting possibility.

The events of the past two months have challenged our profession like never before. In so many ways it is hard to imagine another time when communications in all of its dimensions was in such dire need. One could argue that we’re in a global communications crisis and this summit should mark a major turning point for us.

The events of September eleven opened up a whole new world for many of us and our clients – a complicated, not fully understood media world and a world of consumer opinion that is unclear and ill-defined.

The very nature of globalization – which is the foundation of this conference theme – is being questioned at an even greater level than it was before September eleven. I believe that it also offers us the opportunity to ensure that the positive forces of globalization continue and, more importantly, that the benefits of globalization are shared by many, and not just a fortunate few. In this way we can help make capitalism work in a moral as well as a business context. And the two aren’t mutually exclusive. They, in fact, complement each other.

To start, we all know where we’ve come in the past two months. The most immediate effect on business was to accelerate a recession already underway – leading to extensive corporate retrenchments.
Clearly with clients cutting costs, public relations has been negatively impacted. There also has been much discussion among us about how to respond to the changing environment and changing client needs and priorities.

But, in many respects, these are minor adjustments that taken alone fail to address the much larger picture. And that brings to me to the subject of our opening presentation – “The New Global Imperative for Public Relations.” Before I state what I believe this imperative should be for us in the agency business, I’d like to set some context.

For many years one term has seemed to define the purpose of our industry – “relationship building.” By working with our clients to build relationships with stakeholders and audiences – whether they’re customers, government or employees – we help influence opinions and perceptions that, combined with other activities, help our clients achieve their business objectives.

The problem with “relationship building” in today’s context is simply that it isn’t enough. For a relationship to be meaningful it has to be founded on mutual trust and understanding. Moreover, “relationship building,” as a term and as a concept, falls short when the situational dynamic is one of acrimony, miscommunication and conflict.

And this is a situation that existed before September eleven. We all know that globalization, as a trend, was in peril well before the terrorist attacks.

From the riots in Seattle to Genoa, it was clear that globalization was not a forgone conclusion.

Now, it is in even greater jeopardy, with many respected observers suggesting that globalization may, in fact, be in its dying days. I, for one, don’t believe this. But there are many such doomsayers. In a recent article in the Financial Times, Morgan Stanley chief economist Stephen Roach advanced the idea that disruption to the international flow of goods and services amounts to a “terrorist tax” that will significantly raise the costs of doing business for multinationals and, in his words, “may bring about the demise of globalization.” In his argument, Mr. Roach makes a comparison to the wave of globalization that occurred during the 1920s, only to be brought to an abrupt end by the Great Depression and a renewed outbreak of war. This is powerful stuff and certainly gives one pause.

The real tragedy in this imagined outcome is that globalization, while flawed in many respects, is a force for good, benefiting business and the world at large. As Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, wrote recently: “The cliché that markets always make the rich richer and the poor poorer is simply not true. Globalization, for example, has improved the lot of hundreds of millions of poor people around the world. Economic gaps have diminished in part because of global markets. No poor country, meanwhile, has ever become rich by isolating itself from global markets.”

Mr. Nye isn’t alone in believing that globalization benefits business and society at large. Scores of leading economists, politicians, academics and other thought-leaders believe similarly – supported by hard statistical data.

So why has globalization been under such fire? And why have international economic conferences turned into deadly events?

A survey of globalization published by The Economist after September eleven blames a massive communications failure on the part of business and government. In this view, and the view of many other observers, there is widespread apathy and even mistrust about globalization because the public and private sectors have done such a poor job communicating the benefits, being transparent about their activities, and building important alliances.

Fortunately, this respected journal also believes that globalization can survive provided a new approach is taken.

This view is also supported by a recent article in the Financial Times that states: “If globalization were a brand, some of its promoters would be arguing for a name change and re-launch.”

Which brings me to what I believe is the New Global Imperative for Public Relations – namely, “Confidence Building to Save Globalization.”

Because globalization has largely been a failure of communications, there are no people better suited in the world to tackle this problem than the people in our profession. Moving from a mindset of relationship-building to “confidence-building,” we alone have the experience and expertise to help unravel the tangled web of messages and misperceptions, dissolve confusion and mistrust, and build mutual confidence among groups so that globalization can reach its full potential.

With that as the imperative, I’d like to begin to outline a strategic communications plan. I’m suggesting an approach that targets three groups – the private sector, non-governmental organizations and international institutions represented by government. All of these sectors are principle agents in the globalization debate and each has communications requirements that we can service.

First, let’s look at the private sector, that is, our clients. One of the main assertions of anti-globalizers is that international capitalism is nothing more than a byword for oppression, exploitation and injustice by rapacious multinationals. In their view, companies will stop at nothing to maximize profits even if it means degrading the environment, abusing workers, exploiting third-world markets and committing a host of other sins.

These are harsh and unfair claims. The problem is that companies have done little to disprove these allegations. The reality is that today’s leading and enlightened corporations – including those on our panel later this morning — have a winning management philosophy, one that recognizes that commercial success is driven by respect for ethical values, people, communities and the physical and social environment. This 21st century management mindset goes by many names – Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR, for short), Sustainable Development, the Triple Bottom Line, to name a few labels. But while the terms may differ, the operating principle is the same, namely, that companies must take into consideration a broad group of stakeholders as they pursue their business goals globally. And that by doing so, there are tangible and intangible business benefits. In this way, good corporate citizenship is not a cost of doing business, but rather a driver of business success. What’s good for the soul is also good for business.

Most companies have not done a good job telling this story. While many cite some commitment to “corporate citizenship,” few have elucidated what they mean by the phrase, examples of how they’re pursuing it and, most importantly, how it’s consistent with business goals. This last point is, perhaps, the most important since proving the business case is the surest way to erase perceptions that “corporate social responsibility” is an empty PR bolt-on.

In a recent Harvard Business Review article, DuPont’s CEO, Chad Holliday, attacked this head on by demonstrating how in myriad ways the company’s sustainable growth strategy is delivering tremendous economic value. He shows how DuPont has saved millions of dollars through new, environmentally efficient manufacturing processes.

An extensive study recently completed by SustainAbility, a London-based consultancy, concludes: “The jury is in – overall, corporate sustainable development has a positive impact on business success. A strategic focus on performance is aligned with mainstream business purposes.”

The study shows that companies that pursue initiatives – be they related to the environment, labor standards or human rights — are rewarded with improved business success in a number of areas, including shareholder value, revenue, operational efficiencies, higher employee morale and productivity, and corporate reputation.

Corporate reputation was the standout. The evidence showed what has long been suspected — that of all the business measures (tangible and intangible) corporate reputation appears to be most positively linked to corporate social performance. And a company’s corporate reputation is a key driver of its shareholder value.

Given the link between corporate social responsibility and reputation, we, as communications counselors, are in a unique position to help companies develop, institutionalize and communicate their corporate social responsibility practices.

We can also be instrumental in terms of conflict resolution. Indeed, many observers are predicting that American brands, in particular, may face some backlash in foreign markets as a result of the U.S. war on terrorism.

Building partnerships and confidence with civil society and enabling communities to hold a stake in economic development will be key tools for successful market development.

Equally, companies must build confidence with the second important group in this communications strategy: non-governmental organizations, many of whom are openly hostile toward the private sector. The United Nation’s Global Compact initiative – which just celebrated its one-year anniversary — was conceived as a platform to bring companies together with NGOs and U.N. agencies to address issues concerning human rights, the environment and labor. In its first year the number of companies engaged in the Global Compact has soared from 50 to well over 300.

The NGO community has also become an important seal of approval for companies and brands. As the Financial Times notes in a just-published special report on responsible business: “A new type of relationship is emerging between companies and NGOs, one where NGOs act as certification bodies, verifying, and in many cases permitting the use of their logos, showing that products and services are being produced in socially responsible and environmentally friendly ways.” Among the NGOs that are engaged in such partnerships: Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Forest Stewardship Council.

This second group – NGOs – also has communications challenges and needs that our profession can serve. It is estimated that there are some 30,000 international NGOs today; while domestic NGOs are counted in the millions. When it comes to NGOs, there is very little common ground – their complaints are numerous and their agendas and methods can diverge radically. Indeed, the rise of the Internet has launched thousands of basement-hatched pressure groups, some of which are downright militant.

Many of these groups are responsible for turning important economic conferences into water-cannon catastrophes.

And that’s what is worrying the moderate, clear-thinking NGOs, many of which have valid complaints about pressing social and economic issues related to globalization. These groups differ in many important respects from their more extreme, slogan-based counterparts. Most importantly, they are peace-abiding and believe in solutions, not slogans.

But, in many cases, their complaints and objectives are overshadowed by the misguided thinking and antics of extremist NGOs. Justin Forsyth, the policy director of Oxfam, says: “It’s very difficult to disentangle yourself from these radical groups. And the violence is counter-productive and takes attention away from the issues.”

Mark Malloch Brown, head of the U.N. Development Program, sees a communications challenge and opportunity here. Moderate NGOs, he says, must take back the argument and find ways of asserting themselves in peaceful ways that get their voices heard.

One NGO that is pursuing a vigorous and successful communications strategy is the World Wildlife Fund. The group advances its points of view using everything from technical papers, briefings and public communications to maintaining a presence in many capitals and reaching out to its member base through the Internet. These activities are our bread-and-butter.

I wonder about two things – how many other NGOs should be pursuing such activities. And secondly, how many of us in this room are working with NGOs or are encouraging these groups to communicate more effectively.

Which brings me to the third group in this communications plan – the international institutions. Many of these institutions have become lightening rods for the globalization backlash – whether it’s WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, the G8, or even the United Nations. As The Economist noted recently, “The institutions that in most people’s eyes represent the global economy are far more reviled than they are admired; the best they can expect from opinion at large is grudging acceptance.”

These institutions are in desperate need of communications counsel at every level. Often wrongly perceived as undemocratic, but fairly perceived as non-transparent, most of these international bodies are in the midst of a monumental public-relations crisis. An article in Foreign Affairs magazine put it this way: “To outsiders, even within the same government, these institutions can look like closed and secretive clubs. Increased transparency is essential. International organizations can provide more access to their deliberations, even if “after the fact.”

Here again, we are perfectly poised to seize the opportunity. For example for the past eight months, we at Ketchum have been working with the United Nations on several high-level projects. We’re the official communications consultants to the United Nation’s Global Compact initiative – the program I mentioned earlier. In this capacity, we’ve been advising the Secretary-General’s office on strategies to raise the profile of the Global Compact, build credibility and confidence with NGOs, and attract more companies to the program.

We’re quite proud of our relationship with the United Nations. And there have been some fascinating learnings for us. One is that principles and practices that we in this room take for granted – including message development, influencer outreach, and targeted media relations – are often unfamiliar to many public affair specialists who have spent entire careers within large, inward-looking organizations. They’re hungry for our methods and perspectives.

Likewise, we’ve been impressed with the deep level of intellectual thought, research and willingness to embrace the private sector, to become more transparent and to explore new ways of doing things. This has truly been an exercise in confidence building.

There are also interesting opportunities for professional branding in this realm. One could argue that all of these institutions need serious branding so that they project values and emotional attributes that resonate with audiences. Just as countries have begun to brand themselves to attract investment, tourism and other desirables, so too should the international institutions consider how to market themselves in ways that dispel misperceptions and advance their agendas. Here again, the private sector and public relations can serve an important role.

And I hope I have not understated our role here and the importance of our firms in helping to move this agenda forward. My purpose this morning is to lead off today’s session on the issues we face in globalization. Tomorrow our agenda will focus on how we in the business of public relations need to manage our firms so we can become more valuable to our clients in counseling them on these very complex issues. Not to be understated is the fact that we must play this critical role if public relations is going to survive and thrive.

I am extremely excited about this summit and the programs that we’ll all be involved in over the next two days. We have a terrific roster of presenters and panelists – the best and brightest in our business. I hope that my thoughts today have provoked and challenged you. The recent changes in our world have led us to perhaps the most pivotal moment in the history of our profession. We have the opportunity to elevate public relations to heights that would have seemed impossible in years past. To be sure, the business climate is daunting. But I believe – as I’m sure you do — in the resiliency of people, societies and business to overcome adversity. Recovery will come, probably sooner than we expect. And with it a chance for public relations to shine like never before.

Thank you.