A new report by the minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee criticized the Bush Administration for spending more than $88M in government-funded public relations contracts in 2004, a 128 percent increase from 2000.
The authors of the report wrote, "This rapid rise in public relations spending at a time of growing budget deficits raises questions about the priorities of the administration.”
The report was requested by Henry Waxman (D-California), Nancy Pelosi (D-California), among others. Waxman has also commissioned the Government Accountability Office to further investigate public relations contracts.
There is no doubt much needs to be corrected about how government agencies utilize public relations to communicate, educate and inform key constituents. For instance, the recent controversy surrounding the Department of Education’s payments to pundit Armstrong Williams through PR consultancy Ketchum has reinforced the bitter reaction that results from a lack of disclosure of the source of information.
However, the House Government Reform Committee gets it way wrong by suggesting PR spending is not a good investment by our government. At a time when the current Administration has implemented new foreign policies resulting in ongoing military conflict in the Middle East, as well as introducing goals for a dramatic overhaul to Social Security more communications is needed, not less.
Yes…the messaging and communications by our government must be accurate, fair and comprehensive -- even when the news isn’t so great. These are the foundation principles of ethical public relations and put into action will stimulate debate in the US and abroad.
(Please note, Strategic does not currently provide public relations services to any government agency, but has done so in the past.)
January 31, 2005, 3:07 pm
Bush's PR Spend Unjustly Criticized
Posted by jeffM
Comments (0)
Send this
January 24, 2005, 2:22 pm
Good Buzz for Buzzwords
Every couple of months there is a journalist gone bleary eyed from reading one too many press releases that believes it is original to weigh in about how buzzwords have overrun communications from technology companies.
A recent example is the Associated Press whose January 17th article “Defining tongue-twisting tech buzzwords” was picked up by CNN.com. An unidentified writer cites a number of expert resources who criticize technology companies for their use of words like “solutions”, “enterprise” and “scalable” in marketing materials.
I am the first to admit most technology companies (and their public relations agencies) need to simplify messaging to the market. Admittedly, this is one of the things we struggle with at times at Strategic Communications Group (Strategic).
However, most so-called technology buzzwords are 100 percent appropriate to use in communications because they mean something relevant to a company’s key audiences – customers, prospects, share****ers and employees.
Let’s take “solutions” as an example. Corporate and government buyers of information technology and telecommunications consistently tell vendors this is what they want, rather than products or services. Make it easy for me to use, give me a competitive advantage and make sure the return on investment is measurable, they say.
How about “enterprise?” Again, this is the word customers use to define something that will be implemented throughout their company. Vendors are merely using the language that establishes comfort with the customer.
Sports are another industry overrun with buzz words. It is where players take it “one game at a time” and “give 110 percent.” Yet, no one seems to have a problem with phrases like “double play” or “slam dunk.” Why? Because they mean something relevant to the audience.
A recent example is the Associated Press whose January 17th article “Defining tongue-twisting tech buzzwords” was picked up by CNN.com. An unidentified writer cites a number of expert resources who criticize technology companies for their use of words like “solutions”, “enterprise” and “scalable” in marketing materials.
I am the first to admit most technology companies (and their public relations agencies) need to simplify messaging to the market. Admittedly, this is one of the things we struggle with at times at Strategic Communications Group (Strategic).
However, most so-called technology buzzwords are 100 percent appropriate to use in communications because they mean something relevant to a company’s key audiences – customers, prospects, share****ers and employees.
Let’s take “solutions” as an example. Corporate and government buyers of information technology and telecommunications consistently tell vendors this is what they want, rather than products or services. Make it easy for me to use, give me a competitive advantage and make sure the return on investment is measurable, they say.
How about “enterprise?” Again, this is the word customers use to define something that will be implemented throughout their company. Vendors are merely using the language that establishes comfort with the customer.
Sports are another industry overrun with buzz words. It is where players take it “one game at a time” and “give 110 percent.” Yet, no one seems to have a problem with phrases like “double play” or “slam dunk.” Why? Because they mean something relevant to the audience.
Posted by jeffM
Comments (0)
Send this
January 17, 2005, 8:01 pm
Sincerity in Business
I’ve had two guiding beliefs in my professional career: 1) the world works on relationships and 2) people do business with companies (and people) they know and trust.
The lines of service that Strategic Communications Group (Strategic) provides to its clients – public relations and business development – have these principles as their foundation. In fact, we productized and then branded our suite of industry connections as the Strategic Network of Relationships®.
Much of establishing a meaningful business relationship is connecting with someone on a personal level. Getting to know who they are and learning what’s important to them in life (family, sports, where they grew up, etc.) and, conversely, sharing what’s important to you.
I am always quick to talk about my wife and son because they are such wonderful influences on who I am as a person. I also hope it helps people see me as a husband and father, not merely a service provider, business partner or employer.
Timing and sincerity makes this all work. For instance, I would probably **** off on the “warm and fuzzies” during a first call with a new business prospect. There just hasn’t been enough connection yet.
That’s why I was a bit surprised when Ken deLaski offered up the following during his 30 minute presentation at last Friday’s ACG National Capital monthly breakfast meeting: he’s the father of two daughters, he went through tremendous personal discovery in taking his company Deltek private in 2002, and his wife is winning her battle with lung cancer. All of this shared to a room of 125 senior corporate executives, most of whom have no relationship with Ken.
Deltek is a former client and I had lunch with Ken a couple years back. He is as professional as they come and a CPA by training. Not really someone who wears his heart on his sleeve.
However, his personal and professional experiences these past few years have certainly changed him. This is what I’ll remember from his presentation.
Deltek has fine products and it’s the 800 pound gorilla in a niche market – ERP software for project-based business. Equally important, I get the sense Deltek respects its employees and customers, and is sincere in its business dealings. And that starts at the top with Ken.
The lines of service that Strategic Communications Group (Strategic) provides to its clients – public relations and business development – have these principles as their foundation. In fact, we productized and then branded our suite of industry connections as the Strategic Network of Relationships®.
Much of establishing a meaningful business relationship is connecting with someone on a personal level. Getting to know who they are and learning what’s important to them in life (family, sports, where they grew up, etc.) and, conversely, sharing what’s important to you.
I am always quick to talk about my wife and son because they are such wonderful influences on who I am as a person. I also hope it helps people see me as a husband and father, not merely a service provider, business partner or employer.
Timing and sincerity makes this all work. For instance, I would probably **** off on the “warm and fuzzies” during a first call with a new business prospect. There just hasn’t been enough connection yet.
That’s why I was a bit surprised when Ken deLaski offered up the following during his 30 minute presentation at last Friday’s ACG National Capital monthly breakfast meeting: he’s the father of two daughters, he went through tremendous personal discovery in taking his company Deltek private in 2002, and his wife is winning her battle with lung cancer. All of this shared to a room of 125 senior corporate executives, most of whom have no relationship with Ken.
Deltek is a former client and I had lunch with Ken a couple years back. He is as professional as they come and a CPA by training. Not really someone who wears his heart on his sleeve.
However, his personal and professional experiences these past few years have certainly changed him. This is what I’ll remember from his presentation.
Deltek has fine products and it’s the 800 pound gorilla in a niche market – ERP software for project-based business. Equally important, I get the sense Deltek respects its employees and customers, and is sincere in its business dealings. And that starts at the top with Ken.
Posted by jeffM
Comments (0)
Send this
January 9, 2005, 5:00 am
Eliot Spitzer is a scary guy
Granted, he has done a lot of good to clean up business. Spitzer transformed the New York Attorney General’s office into a catalyst for change and has successfully taken on long-entrenched, powerful and bureaucratic industries such as investment banking and mutual funds. His ability to rapidly affect change is stunning.
However, Spitzer’s motivations have nothing to do with being a so-called champion for the people. He is all about Spitzer and his own personal interests – whether it is his political aspirations or the power showdowns he relishes with the business elite.
Consider his suit against former NYSE-board member Kenneth Langone for signing off on a $187.5 million pay package for Richard Grasso, former head of the exchange. According to Newsweek, Spitzer delivered a message to Langone by having a mutual acquaintance tell him that he intended to “put a spike through (his) heart.”
Is that someone we want serving as governor of New York? Or, even worse, on a national stage one day? Business and politics are not personal. There are times to be forceful, but actions should always be motivated by what is best for the constituents a person serves.
Now Spitzer and his band of legal crusaders are occupied with Marsh & McLennan and the insurance industry. The kick-back scheme and rigged bidding that apparently was an accepted industry practice is deplorable. Yes, it needs to be changed and there must be accountability for it.
But, (again) Spitzer made his vendetta against now former Marsh & McLennan CEO Jeffrey Greenberg part of the motivation for a threat of a criminal indictment against the company. The impact of an indictment would have been devastating for thousands of the company’s employees – most of whom had nothing to do with the questionable actions of their employer.
What Spitzer does know is how to leverage the media. He is a master public relations practitioner and does an excellent job of presenting complex information in a clear, concise manner with consistent messaging. Make no mistake, his position of strength and the power is office yields is PR-driven.
Spitzer just landed the cover of the January 10th issue New York Magazine. The photograph is par for the course with this guy. Spitzer stands, arms crossed, glaring at the camera. In the background are a group of lawyers from his office shrouded in the shadows.
It’s all about Spitzer. And he is a scary guy.
However, Spitzer’s motivations have nothing to do with being a so-called champion for the people. He is all about Spitzer and his own personal interests – whether it is his political aspirations or the power showdowns he relishes with the business elite.
Consider his suit against former NYSE-board member Kenneth Langone for signing off on a $187.5 million pay package for Richard Grasso, former head of the exchange. According to Newsweek, Spitzer delivered a message to Langone by having a mutual acquaintance tell him that he intended to “put a spike through (his) heart.”
Is that someone we want serving as governor of New York? Or, even worse, on a national stage one day? Business and politics are not personal. There are times to be forceful, but actions should always be motivated by what is best for the constituents a person serves.
Now Spitzer and his band of legal crusaders are occupied with Marsh & McLennan and the insurance industry. The kick-back scheme and rigged bidding that apparently was an accepted industry practice is deplorable. Yes, it needs to be changed and there must be accountability for it.
But, (again) Spitzer made his vendetta against now former Marsh & McLennan CEO Jeffrey Greenberg part of the motivation for a threat of a criminal indictment against the company. The impact of an indictment would have been devastating for thousands of the company’s employees – most of whom had nothing to do with the questionable actions of their employer.
What Spitzer does know is how to leverage the media. He is a master public relations practitioner and does an excellent job of presenting complex information in a clear, concise manner with consistent messaging. Make no mistake, his position of strength and the power is office yields is PR-driven.
Spitzer just landed the cover of the January 10th issue New York Magazine. The photograph is par for the course with this guy. Spitzer stands, arms crossed, glaring at the camera. In the background are a group of lawyers from his office shrouded in the shadows.
It’s all about Spitzer. And he is a scary guy.
