Κρίση, οι ευθύνες των ανθρώπων της επικοινωνίας και του PR

Ο Richard Edelman (φωτο) τα λέει με το όνομά τους. Αν δεν έχετε χρόνο να διαβάσετε το post του, ιδού οι επικεφαλίδες με τηλεγραφικό τρόπο.

Οι άνθρωποι της επικοινωνίας και των δημοσίων σχέσεων, δεν είναι από τους «πρωτεργάτες» της κρίσης, ωστόσο έχουν ευθύνες, επειδή:
1. συνέβαλαν στο να προβληθούν ως «υπερήρωες» τα golden boys που κατέστρεψαν τις τράπεζες και το σύστημα της αγοράς,
2. δεν έδωσαν με σθένος τη μάχη κατά της δικηγορίστικης αντίληψης «να μιλάμε όσο το δυνατόν λιγότερο»,
3. δεν έσπρωξαν, ώστε να πάμε από μια κοινωνία των μετόχων (που ήθελαν ολοένα και μεγαλύτερα μερίσματα) σε μια κοινωνία των κοινωνικών εταίρων (που νοιάζονται και για άλλα θέματα, που τσεκάρουν την απληστία),
4. αφησαν την εντύπωση ότι οι business είναι συνώνυμες του αχαλίνωτου κέρδους, όταν εκατομμύρια άνθρωποι που επιχειρούν αμείβονται με χαμηλότερες αμοιβές απ’ ό,τι πολλοί μισθωτοί και αναζητούν τη δημιουργία. Η άτακτη στροφή προς τον προστατευτισμό και τον κρατισμό, θα έχει κόστος και τίμημα…

Δείτε το με την ησυχία σας παρακάτω:

PR’s Responsibilities in the Current Crisis

As the global financial crisis has evolved into a serious worldwide recession, most of the critics’ venom has been reserved for the banking industry. But my friend, Matthew Bishop of the Economist, asked me in an email yesterday what the PR business has learned from the meltdown. While I do not believe that our sector was a primary contributor to the present malaise, there are clear areas for improvement, as follows: First, we facilitated a cult of personality around business leaders, particularly those in the financial services sector. The paeans to captains of private equity and hedge fund CEOs in 2006-2008 were eerily similar to articles only a decade earlier on dot-com entrepreneurs and New Economy darlings such as Tyco and Global Crossing. The business press wanted heroes and we helped to create them. Second, we lost the transparency wars to the lawyers, who opted for sanctity of content and avoidance of litigation risk over full explanation of objectives and disclosure of specific investments. The ensuing confusion on the business model has been detrimental to companies. It also undermines the relationship between employer and employees, as redundancies are initiated without understanding of the economic necessity of change. Third, we failed to persuade management of the evolution from a shareholder to a stakeholder society in which a broader set of criteria are applied to evaluate success of the enterprise. Such a transition calls for a more consultative approach with employees, NGOs, government and consumers, as well as the pursuit of returns to reward investors. Fourth, we have not sufficiently communicated the central role of business in improving society, generating jobs, or raising living standards. The current call for protectionism is one example of short-sighted thinking and an impassioned knee-jerk reaction. We have told stories laden with statistics and using economists as spokespeople, but are failing to counter the human interest tales of lost jobs. Out of frustration, people are turning to government as option of first resort. This is an inflection point for our profession. The present crisis requires PR professionals to advise the C-suite on how to bridge to constituencies from civil society to government. We should use this crisis to move an agenda that encompasses both policy change and continuous communication. Business is expected to behave differently by explaining its plans prior to implementation and by listening to the broader community. We can help regain business’ license to operate by establishing consensus for action, then demonstrating performance against transparent goals.

*photo via flickr*