Published Articles

SBAM Focus/June 2009

Is your business “fit” enough to be advertised?

By Barbara Lezotte, APR

             In a down economy, “survival of the fittest” may apply to businesses.  Those that have gotten by with mediocre customer service and products in a good economy may not fare as well when competition intensifies for a smaller customer base.  Businesses that want to get in better shape to compete can’t merely beef up their advertising and marketing efforts.  Instead, they should evaluate their relationships with clients and take a critical look at whether their advertising promises match customers’ actual experience.  

              Whether large corporation or small company, every type of business develops a reputation based largely on how it interacts with its key publics -- employees, suppliers, customers and clients.  A company's advertising and "image-building" is secondary because customers will constantly compare how they’re treated with the company's promotion.  They will also listen to and observe those in the know -- employees and suppliers -- to determine if the company's image-building efforts match reality.

All the advertising, public relations and marketing a budget can buy can't create a positive image for a company if the company can’t deliver product and service satisfaction.  The higher customers’ expectations are raised through advertising, the unhappier they will be when a company doesn’t deliver (and they’ll share their story.)

              To evaluate your business’s competitive “fitness,” consider some key areas:  How much of your company’s budget goes into employee training for customer service?  If you’re not investing in training, advertising by itself can’t assure long-term customers.    Is your marketing campaign geared only to get customers in the door, but not on preparing your employees to treat them well when they arrive?   Do you raise your customers’ expectations through advertising, only to disappoint them when employees can’t answer questions, or aren’t interested in the customer’s need?   Does your advertising say great things about your service, but your own employees speak negatively about it to neighbors, friends and relatives?

              Companies that are “fit” to survive the economic doldrums have some things in common.  Their employees have genuine smiles of welcome and convey a positive attitude and willingness to help.  They are friendly in person or over the phone.  They take time to find solutions, go the extra mile and make sure their customer is happy.  Their personal appearance is neat, clean and appropriate, which says to the customer, "I respect you and I want to create the best impression possible because I value your business."

              Contrast that experience with one that is less positive:  A store employee never speaks a word of greeting or acknowledgement, who looks pointedly at the clock three times while processing a transaction 10 minutes before closing time, and whose body language says loudly and clearly,  "I had more important things to do than take care of your business right now."  Lack of training?  Inadequate staffing so that too much pressure is put on too few employees?  Whatever the cause of such poor service, it speaks volumes about the company.  Such an experience will color one's perceptions, no matter how clever the advertising jingle.

              Unfortunately, heaping loads of advertising on an already poor reputation creates even more disdain for the company.  Customers will make other choices when the front line service people are rude, untrained and blatantly oblivious of the meaning of the word "customer service."

              Companies that work directly with the public -- restaurants, banks, retailers, health care providers -- have the greatest vulnerability to reputation damage, although it may happen only one customer at a time.  Enough isolated incidents, however, can quickly soil a previously positive image, especially with today’s technology for blogging, twittering and posting negative experiences on websites.

              Some companies who invest heavily in their people are able to spend little or nothing on advertising.  Instead the company's reputation is nurtured every day by its well-trained staff.  They develop credibility with their clients who know they will experience consistency in their dealings with the organization every time or nearly every time.  (No one's perfect, after all.) 

Such organizations work hard to make sure their employees measure up.  When they don't, those employees must be shown the door.  The advertising budget only serves to enhance the reputation that has already been built, one client or customer at a time.

              In this era of economic challenges – bankruptcies, massive job losses and huge government deficits – businesses need to focus first on customer satisfaction.  Once they’re sure they can measure up, only then is it time to advertise it.

Greater Lansing Business Monthly/August 2008

Media interview checklist

Rank your spokesperson capabilities

By Barbara Lezotte, APR

               Preparing for an on-camera interview can cause even the most seasoned speakers to break out in a cold sweat.  Yet most business people have what it takes to be successful, with a little training.  Even a reluctant spokesperson can show up on the six o’clock news with poise and credibility, providing he or she takes time to prepare.

               As I help clients respond to media interview opportunities and challenges, I am always reviewing a mental list to determine how well a potential spokesperson will come across on the air.  Of the three types of potential interviews – print, radio and TV – television poses the highest risks for obvious reasons, so the checklist of 10 key indicators is geared to on-camera interviews. 

              How do you or your organization’s spokespeople measure up?  They are in order of importance, as I see them.  Note that delivery outranks content.

• Prepared  -- You have taken the time to discern the interview direction and know how you will respond to all anticipated questions.  You have also identified the left field questions and are ready to either answer or deflect those as well.  You have prepared one “key message” which you will be certain to convey, no matter the direction of the questions.  You have practiced out loud that key message and are certain it represents the position of your organization positively and accurately.  If you are truly prepared according to the above criteria, give yourself 10 points.

• Credible – You have developed a style that conveys honesty, trust and believability.  When you speak, people who don’t know you will tend to take what you say at “face value.”  9 points.

• Calm – You have developed the ability to relax and control your nerves prior to an interview.  Although you may be prepared and credible, it’s easy to blow the interview by allowing insecurities to visibly surface.  Stumbling, stammering, nervous movements, etc. tell viewers that you have something to hide, even if you’re telling the absolute truth.  It’s normal to be nervous about a media interview, but you don’t have to show it.  Eight points if you can perform well under pressure.

• Confident – You are able to take your calm demeanor to the next level and express your positive take on the issues at hand.  You are able to convey conviction and faith in your organization and reassure viewers about uncertainties.   Your confidence tends to dispel doubts and hesitation.   Seven points.

• Concise – You are capable of organizing your message into appropriate sound bites that don’t bore the viewer with too much detail or unimportant facts.  You stick to the issue and don’t veer off on tangents.  Six points.

• Friendly/Likable  -- Viewers tend to trust you because you exude an appropriate level of warmth and concern for other people.  You seem approachable, a person who would take the time to answer their questions, if asked.   Four points.

• Understandable – You have taken the trouble to translate your message into laymen’s terms that the general public will be able to understand.  You have left the industry jargon back at the office and replaced it with general but accurate terminology.  Three points.

• Accessible – You are readily available and help the interviewer meet his or her deadline, once you are totally prepared, that is.  Two points.

• Quotable – You can come up with that short sound bite that is just too irresistible for the reporter to ignore.   A memorable, on point comment should be your goal.  To achieve the honor badge of “quotability,” your comment should be fairly original, perhaps colorful or with an astute analogy that illustrates your point cleverly.  If you’ve mastered the quotable quote for most interviews, give yourself one more point.

• Expert in your field – You know your subject inside and out and are ready to answer even the most complex questions in excruciating detail.  Although reporters occasionally request such an in-depth interview, in most cases they only have time for the immediate issue at hand.  They’d prefer you don’t overwhelm them with your incredible learning and expertise.  Zero points.

Score Results

1 to 20 points:  Depending on the severity of the issue or incident you’re responding to, you’re taking a risk representing your organization without a lot of experience.   Identify the areas where you need improvement and seek help through internal or outside training. 

21-30 points – You have developed some adequate interview skills that will allow you to tackle “friendly” interviews on non-controversial or complex topics.  Determine where you can improve and whether you need help to make yourself a better spokesperson for your company.

31 to 40 points – You have a high level of capability, which may only need a little more practice and attention to weaknesses to take it to the next level.  Take more low-risk opportunities to speak on behalf of your organization, especially when question-and- answer formats are possible.  Ask for feedback from trusted colleagues.  Before taking on a high-risk interview, take advantage of a mock interview training session and be sure you’re the best person for the job.

Greater Lansing Business Monthly/May 2008

Only 15 percent of businesses are prepared for crisis

By Barbara Lezotte, APR

                Contaminated food, executive fraud, workplace accidents.  Just a few of the potential challenges that have placed local companies in the glare of the media spotlight.   Almost a third of Michigan businesses are vulnerable to a crisis in which they are forced to confront negative press and communication challenges, according to a recent survey conducted by EPIC-MRA and commissioned by Lezotte Miller Inc.  Only 15 percent have a plan in place to deal with negative publicity, and just 4 percent have updated the plan recently to deal with today’s media challenges.   (The 2007 study of 600 Michigan businesses had a margin of error of +/- 4 percent.)

                Our study found that nearly a third of the storefront business owners who agreed they were vulnerable had, in fact, already experienced negative publicity due to issues such as fraud, employee errors or harm to customers because of faulty products, etc.  Despite the risk that many types of companies face, the majority of businesses can prevent a media crisis by taking the time to look critically at their operations.  By regularly assessing vulnerabilities, most companies are able to fix potential problems before they attract negative media attention.

                Some of the most vulnerable businesses are drifting on a false sense of security that media crises are something that only happen to someone else.  We’ve worked with several well-managed, successful companies who suddenly find themselves page one news due to an unintentional employee error or an event outside the company’s control.  Negative publicity can be the death knell for some companies, especially when strong competition exists.  Competitors are only too willing to step in and take care of a wounded company’s customers or clients after a negative incident has weakened its credibility or marred its safety record. 

              When it’s too late for prevention, however, dealing with the issue head on is critical.  A company in crisis must respond effectively to media inquiries or risk being branded as guilty.  Incredibly, there are still business executives and their legal advisors who decide that media avoidance is the safest strategy.  Such a passive approach allows the media to define the company’s reputation, often erroneously. 

Lack of communication only serves to reinforce the public and media’s belief in the allegations, whatever they might be and no matter how far-fetched.  An implausible story suddenly takes on considerable credence when the organization refuses to comment or the paper is able to write, “CEO John Doe did not return several phone calls,” or “President Jane Smith was unavailable for comment.”

            Communicating throughout an organizational crisis is unfortunately not a science, but an art, in which experience and understanding of the potential for harm to the organization and appropriate action help bring about more positive outcomes.  A crisis plan includes more than simply identifying and training the organization’s spokesperson.  Think of it as an emergency response drill.  The pressure, stress and shock of a media crisis make clear thinking difficult and allow little time to present a credible response.  Television cameras arrive with little warning and are not easily turned away.  Print reporters are relentless when they smell scandal or cover-ups.  With no preparation, those on the firing line can easily and inadvertently make unfortunate statements.  The long-term reputation of the organization will survive, be tarnished or be demolished not only based on what the media report, but through perceptions drawn from other credible sources the media is able to unearth.

            Figure out what issues or actions could cause your organization to make headlines and take steps now to prepare and prevent.  Make necessary changes in areas of vulnerability.  Verify assumptions regarding product integrity, community concerns, employee conduct, etc. and make corrections.  Bring in an outside expert to help identify and prepare for the worst-case scenarios.

Greater Lansing Business Monthly/December 2007

Economic development efforts require the three Rs

By Barbara Lezotte, APR

              Amid the continuing economic challenges in Michigan, it may get easier for companies, local governments and other entities to gain public approval for facilities that create jobs and increase the tax base.  Then again, it may not.

              That segment of the public that tends to oppose any sort of economic development or business expansion, no matter the contribution to the health of the local economy, tends not to capitulate on critical issues central to their values – appropriate land use, air and water quality, noise pollution, traffic congestion, etc.  In order to gain public approval for new developments – even those that seem to pose few negatives – organizations should not assume that a lackluster economy will bring the naysayers into the jobs creation fold and keep them from speaking out against economic development.

              In recent local history, such groups have opposed lush green golf courses, road widenings that eased traffic congestion and even housing developments in school districts which badly needed new student enrollment.  They’ve also opposed what one might expect them to -- landfills, sprawling shopping centers, and businesses with the potential to pollute the air and water.  In today’s environment of instantaneous communication, a handful of community activists can organize a formidable opposition in the time it takes to input an email database. 

              Governments and communities that desire growth and a more solid tax revenue stream and companies that want to expand need to anticipate and have a plan to head off opposition efforts from vocal minority groups.  Communities do exist where the development process is smooth and non-controversial; while other locales seem to be perpetually embroiled in costly legal battles that divide the community and take focus away from other important issues.  

              What makes the difference?  A strong community relations program based on regular, two-way communication with neighborhood groups and community leaders is the first step in building an understanding of the important role economic development plays in the quality of life of a community.  Maintaining a regular dialogue with business and community leaders, neighbors and other key audiences can be the start of a coalition of support for future projects – whether public or private. 

             Clearly communicating the need and developing public understanding of the community benefits is a prerequisite to acceptance.  It shouldn’t be, “What’s in it for the company, the township, the city?”  It should be, “This project will benefit the local community in terms of  (fill in the blank -- jobs, improved services, less need to raise taxes.”  Even the Mikie groups (the ones who don’t like anything) can sometimes be neutralized when the community benefit is clear.  Often such groups provide critical input that, if implemented, could make a project more palatable.

              That said, an investment into research to assure an accurate understanding of the community’s potential concerns could save time and costs in the long run.  Some corporations, anticipating public opposition on the basis of one factor -- such as historical preservation -- have found that other, more mundane issues -- such as parking and traffic concerns -- were more explosive.  Knowing which spark will ignite the opposition is critical to developing a communication campaign for community support.

              Research can serve another key purpose, in that it is a subtle tactic for creating dialogue within the community that will help the organization identify supporters as well as potential opponents.  Public support for development projects tends to build gradually as people absorb the facts that will impact them personally.  Companies that attempt to railroad projects through without an appropriate courtship process shouldn’t be surprised when their proposals are turned down flat. In fact, such heavy-handed efforts often inspire deep-rooted distrust that could filter into other areas of the company’s operation.

Greater Lansing Business Monthly/May 2007

A lesson in marketing:  On green beans and branding irons

By Barbara Lezotte, APR

              A time-honored communication concept has seeped into the lexicon of corporate CEOs, association executives and even government leaders.  Once heard only from the mouths of advertising gurus, the term has lately been embraced by unlikely converts who are realizing its value in today’s chaotic communication clutter.

              “What we need to do,” declared one executive of a large organization, “is brand ourselves!”   An image of corporate CEOs lining up for the cattle ranch branding iron comes to mind.  That executive, however, and many others are recognizing that it’s important to define as clearly as possible what their organizations stand for and what they offer to clients, customers and other stakeholders.  Successful branding for organizations takes more than a corporate identity campaign in which logos, taglines, slogans, mission statements and other forms of organizational definition are developed.  Branding must first be an internal process that reaches deep into the roots of an organization. 

              I first learned the concept of “brand” behind the shopping cart, alongside my mother who let me help select grocery purchases from the store shelves.

              “Let’s get some green beans,” she instructed.  “No, not that one.  Get the ‘name brand.’” 

“Why are those better?” I wondered.  She explained that it’s safer to buy from the companies whose names you knew.  The product is more likely to taste good because the “name brand” companies are more careful when they produce the product.  Huh?  How do you figure out which ones are the “name brands?”

As I evolved into an independent purchaser with disposable income for bikes, clothes and record albums, I applied the “name brand” concept -- paying attention to promotional claims, comparing those to the actual quality and trying to get the most value for my limited budget.  (Admittedly, when it came to record albums, it was more about BANDS than brands.)

               Some companies understand branding so well, they are able to successfully market sub-quality products to certain audiences who value brand more than quality and are willing to pay more than the product is worth to get it.  Teenagers are a prime target and repeatedly demonstrate that the name on the shirt means more than the fabric quality, which often disintegrates after the second washing.  Many teenagers purchase in herd mentality, buying what has been deemed acceptable by their particular subculture. What they’re paying for is image.  They’re investing in a cultural identity that makes them feel they belong. 

                Today, the concept of branding has reached far beyond product advertising and marketing and into organizations that sell services.  From law firms to construction companies, medical providers to local governments, leaders are seeing it as a way to differentiate their service from competitors, improve their market share, even justify tax increases.  Some such efforts fall flat, however, because they are nothing more than promotion and hype.  Savvy purchasers, clients, patrons and even taxpayers expect a brand to be based, not on advertising, but reputation – in other words, the actual outcomes they personally experience.  They don’t want to hear promises; they want evidence and results.  Emotion-based marketing for organizations that need to recruit members, attract clients or expand market base can only take the organization so far.

                 An educational institution or school district that tries to brand itself as providing “world-class” programs must deliver.  If the experience of those closest to the “product” – the teachers, parents and students themselves -- doesn’t agree with the promotional claims, word-of-mouth will soon override the branding efforts.  If a medical provider makes its patients wait, subjects them to frustrating billing problems and generally mistreats them, its patients’ experience will nullify its carefully crafted but empty slogans of caring for patients.  If an association purports to make its members’ more knowledgeable about their particular industry and thus make their jobs easier, they must know the challenges those members face and provide cost-effective strategies to overcome them.  As soon as any crack is visible between the purchasers’ experience and the organization’s “brand,” all marketing and advertising claims become moot. 

               Although branding is a worthwhile endeavor for many organizations, it needs to evolve from research – knowledge of the particular market, the needs of purchasers, the beliefs held by clients, the challenges of members or other key stakeholders.  Do their perceptions of the organization match what the organization actually offers?   If not, why not?  Is there a disconnect between the clientele’s expectations and what the organization can deliver?  Before branding can take place, leaders must understand their organizations fully and reach beyond their own assumptions into those of the people they serve.

Thinking back, I paid special attention to the taste of those green beans.  I’m glad my mother took such care to select what she considered was the best possible choice, paying attention to the company’s reputation, its advertising, its packaging; but that didn’t stop me from trying to pass those green beans under the table to one of my brothers, if I could get away with it.

Greater Lansing Business Monthly/December 2006

Communication style drives corporate culture

By Barbara Lezotte, APR

              The office was buzzing.  The company’s president has just sent word that all staff should gather in the lobby for an announcement in less than an hour.  Most work came to a halt on the two floors that housed about 25 people.  Small groups began to converge here and there.  Inter-office emails sped from computer to computer.

                  “I bet we’re merging with another company!” One employee speculated.  “I think he’s decided to retire,” another pondered.  “Wonder who will be taking over!”  “Maybe we’re closing one of our offices,” suggested someone else.  “What if we’re going out of business?” another fretted.   “Perhaps we just landed a big, new account,” countered another.  “Or we lost one!”

              By the time the group was assembled in the front lobby, the air was electric, the tension palpable.  With expectant faces, the employees anxiously awaited the news they were sure would have a major impact on their jobs, careers and paychecks.  The president entered, and took note of the anticipation he had created.

              “I’ve just heard some news that the media doesn’t even know yet,” he said smiling.  “But it will probably be on the news tonight.”  And he proceeded to inform us about some political gossip involving the private life of a high level public official.   It was the proverbial lead balloon.  The group stared, dumbfounded that the news they had been herded together to hear did not directly impact them, was announced almost gleefully and that at least 25 hours of individual productivity had been wasted.

              Those in attendance learned something about the corporate culture of their particular organization that day.   The president had sent a clear message that gossip is valued and encouraged and that it takes precedence over the work employees were hired to do.  The incident also underscores the speed and power of the office grapevine.

              The story is instructive for leaders in all types of organizations, who set the tone for the culture in which their managers and employees operate.  When leaders condone gossip and other less-than professional standards in the workplace, it can become a destructive dynamic that affects productivity, morale and, ultimately, success in a competitive marketplace.

              Employees who feel free to talk about one another’s work performance, personal business or politics -- in ways that are often hurtful -- can be divisive forces in the organization.  To protect themselves from those they perceive as threatening, workers may feel the need to form cliques and alliances.  They become more focused on advancing their personal agendas or insulating themselves from being hurt by others.

              Conflicts are magnified and create mistrust, dissention and an inability to work as a team to accomplish the goals of the organization.  In organizations where such behavior is allowed, some workers who play the game well tend to profit, while others reap the negative consequences of the dysfunctional culture.  In the end, they all lose, because the organization finds it difficult to compete when it is self-destructing.

              In the aforementioned example, the company president set the tone.  His actions, whether conscious or not, telegraphed to his employees that rumor, innuendo and speculation are tools of the trade and can be used at will.  Employees who enter such a culture must decide if they will play by the accepted rules or hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior.

              Contrast the negative scenario with one in which a high standard of respect for employees and co-workers is practiced, gossip is not tolerated and communication is used positively to convey the goals and challenges the organization needs to achieve.  Employees are gathered regularly for two-way communication.  Leaders and managers share information that will help employees become more knowledgeable about the organization, the industry and the competition.  Co-workers are encouraged to value each other for their respective strengths and support each other when there are weaknesses.  Anyone who either knowingly or unwittingly undermines a co-worker is made to understand that such behavior weakens the entire organization.  Such a culture must be developed by leadership and modeled every day on the job.  Workers must be given the tools, through communication, to resolve the conflicts, which are bound to arise.

             Communication is a powerful force that is often overlooked when organizations evaluate why they can’t seem to succeed.  It’s easier to blame outside competition, market forces or outdated technology.  Although turning around a negative culture is a daunting task; it must begin with laying a new foundation of positive communication based on respect for every member of the organization.  Strong leadership with a backbone of professionalism is the first step.

Greater Lansing Business Monthly/July 2005

Is media perfection too much to ask?

By Barbara Lezotte, APR

              Our sources for news have exploded over the last two decades, and our expectations for accuracy and immediacy have increased proportionately.  For business people charged with preserving their organizations’ image and maximizing news coverage opportunities, it is helpful to understand the challenge from the news gatherers’ perspective.  Our tremendous access to information may have something to do with our increasing intolerance of anything less than perfection in the coverage of our businesses and industries.

              We are quick to cry foul when errors are made and more likely to assume some evil intent when our organization has been left out of an important industry story.  When once misquoted, we may swear off all future contact with anyone remotely associated with the media.  We are somewhat offended when the story idea we propose is ignored in favor of seemingly lesser topics.  We are annoyed when our announcements do make the paper, but are buried deep inside under tiny headlines.  

            Ken Paulson, editor of USA Today, who spoke to the Lansing Economic Club recently on the topic of press freedom, contends that we no longer put journalists on a pedestal as in the past, but rather relegate them to the same category occupied by snake oil salesmen.  We view their reporting with skepticism.  We wonder if they’ve allowed a bit of bias to creep into their journalistic objectivity.  We assume they must have some secret agenda.  Paulson is quick to admit the faults and failures of the media – especially in light of recent highly-publicized gaffes -- but he astutely notes that those blunders get widespread coverage in part because members of the media hold themselves to high standards, deeply regret when mistakes are made and are willing to admit to them. Although media competition creates a chaotic climate for reporting the news, reporters and editors by and large are still getting the job done without sacrificing their principles or journalistic integrity.  From the vantage point of a public relations counselor, constantly seeking to provide information to reporters and editors on behalf of clients, I believe the high quality of reporting continues despite tremendous pressures on the professionals who bring us the news each day.

              Newsrooms aren’t what they used to be 20 years ago.  The size of news staffs has declined markedly as each media outlet tries to operate efficiently within budget constraints.  The handful of reporters and editors who remain must daily turn out dozens of pages of factually perfect, brightly written copy showing balance for opposing views and in-depth knowledge of the topic and industry.  They must understand the big picture, be able to perceive emerging trends within industries and predict how they will impact the rest of us.

            Technology bombards these reporters and editors by the second with newswire reports, email alerts and urgent faxes – which are in addition to the phone calls from anyone who wants to suggest a story idea or complain about yesterday’s news coverage.  Print reporters, who in the past might have had the luxury of covering one “beat” or news area exclusively, must now spread themselves over several without sacrificing quality or knowledge of the issues.  If they don’t, there is always another media choice for consumers. 

           Newspaper reporters must make continual judgments about what will still be “news” when the paper arrives on your doorstep the next morning.  If the story breaks at 2 p.m. and is on the Internet by 2:05, the radio by 2:30, the TV news at 6 p.m., is it still newsworthy by 6 a.m. the next day?   Newspaper readership has been on the decline each year, along with advertising revenue.  The need for newsrooms to do more with less will continue. 

Greater Lansing Business Monthly/August 2004

Communication basics can help businesses connect

By Barbara Lezotte, APR

              Technology has multiplied the ways companies can communicate with clients and customers, making marketing, advertising and public relations decisions all the more complicated.  Which type of communication will connect a company to clients and customers most cost-effectively?  Business owners and managers can maximize their communication budget by knowing a few basics about communicating.  Technology has certainly expanded our options, but at the same time, made it much easier to spend money uselessly.

1. Advertising, marketing and public relations are not synonymous.  In this era of “integrated marketing” the three often overlap and can be confusing, but they each have a different role and can accomplish very different goals.  Advertising is the most well understand since most people are bombarded by it daily. Yet it will not work for every business.  Very simply, advertising is purchased visibility in newspapers, on television and radio, on web pages or in outdoor formats such as billboards and bus cards.  The advertiser controls the message and seeks to create action by potential customers.  The ability to select from such a wide array of formats allows any organization to target its audience, however, care must be taken to be sure dollars are not wasted on a particular medium that will not deliver the desired audience.

2.  Marketing involves activities or efforts outside of the advertising realm that draw clients or customers to your product or service. Marketing is distinguished from advertising in that it reaches out to specific populations through mediums outside of the paid advertising arena.  It may include such diverse efforts as making speeches to local service clubs, to providing educational materials to high school students as part of a community outreach program, to mailing well targeted postcards to potential customers. 

3.  Public relations, perhaps the least understood, is a process in which particular publics or audiences are provided information designed to educate them, change their behavior or persuade them to support a specific issue.  Public relations activities are generally not used to influence direct sales of a product or service, as are advertising and marketing; however, PR activities may improve the public’s understanding of a company, which could indirectly impact its sales. Public relations programs are often confused as mere publicity efforts because practitioners often work through the news media to carry a message to specific audiences.  Giving reporters and editors background information, interviews with sources and additional in-depth facts all help make media coverage more complete and accurate.  Beyond the media, public relations efforts continue with well targeted communication designed to reach a specific audience of stakeholders or constituents.  Public relations is all about public relationships, not simply publicity.

4.  Making decisions about where to put marketing dollars requires an understanding of your client or customer base and which type of communication, or combination of, will produce the best results.  Is yours a service business with a broad array of potential clients or a more narrow, well-defined client base?  Do you sell a product to a wide variety of customers or is your product of use to only a particular category of the population?  Do your clients come to you directly or is there usually a referral source as a middleman?  Before deciding where to allocate your budget, your knowledge of who your potential customer or client is and how to reach them will be essential.

5.  Research can make any marketing, advertising or public relations program more effective.  Prior to launching marketing and communication efforts, it’s often the larger organizations that spend money on research, while smaller companies with smaller budgets consider it a luxury they can’t afford.  Yet, even informal, inexpensive research can help the smallest businesses improve their communication with customers and clients.  Research need not be slick and sophisticated in order to yield valuable intelligence a business can use to improve itself.  Quick surveys by phone or email, small focus groups and even feedback from employees can offer much if companies are willing to listen.

6.  What a company says about itself in its advertising, marketing and public relations is less important than what its employees and customers say about the company.  The image you build for your organization in advertising will pale in comparison to the experience your customers have first hand or the information they glean from your employees.  Pay attention to the seemingly “small stuff.” 

7.  A slow economy is not the time to cut communication with customers and clients.

Instead, businesses need to be even more aggressive and focused in their marketing, advertising and public relations efforts.  Those who stay on course are more likely to stay in front of their competition when the economy begins to bounce back.

As corporations, associations, non-profits and other organizations struggle to communicate effectively in a higher tech world, a few communication basics can help owners and managers sort through the many options now available in our constantly communicating society.

Greater Lansing Business Monthly/March 2003

Combat Communication Maladies with an Audit

By Barbara Lezotte, APR

                  As organizations grow, many begin to suffer from a similar communication malady. Although common enough to warrant a syndrome name, for a lack of a textbook term we might call it inadvertent diversionary communicatitis.

                  The symptoms are easy to spot. Several departments are each putting out a newsletter, often carrying the same message to the same audience. The website says one thing but the corporate magazine has a totally different take on the issue. The printing budget has quadrupled yet the organization members complain they weren't informed about the major initiatives that took place. Satellite offices have created their won logos that bear no resemblance to the corporate identity. Staff members are in constant motion sending faxes, e-mail alerts and reminder postcards, but attendance is down at events.

                  As leaders of these organizations, our intentions are in the right place. We know that communication is important, our specific audiences need to hear from us regularly and there is so much that needs to be communicated. Our staffs have learned the value of communication, and they like seeing their words and images at work.

                  Yet, communication can loose focus and become a diversion. It is possible to drown our target audiences in information and submerge the message we had tried to send. Especially with today's electronic menu of communication tools, we are easily tempted to use everything at our disposal so as not to overlook a single dissemination opportunity.

                  Just as our financials need auditing from time to time, we should also submit our communication efforts to regular evaluations and look for overlaps, redundancies, inconsistencies and overgrowths. Whether communication is to employees of a growing corporation, the membership of a thriving association or the interested supporters of a nonprofit organization, it pays to review the communication vehicles we're using and evaluate their effectiveness.

                  Inadvertent diversionary communicatitis is typical in organizations whose layers of staffing and departments have grown or where routine Some publications take on a life of their own and carry on long readers have departed. Or an executive can't break the habit of putting out his or her monthly report to the branch offices even though the electronic message system had the relevant information to the branches within hours. In a large organization where some departments are winning the communication battle while others struggle to get their message across, it pays to analyze why and try to achieve consistencies. Does each department or office clearly understand the message the organization is trying to send? Has the message changed significantly over time and have some staff members not caught up with current conditions?

                  A communication audit can help an organization streamline its communication and reaffirm the objectives it is trying to achieve. It can provide relevant information to help make decisions that impact the communication budget and ability to communicate effectively. For many organizations that compete for customers, clients or members, on-target communication can make the difference between survival and going out of business. Why spend thousands of dollars a year on communication efforts that aren't working? Old habits are often hard to break. "Because we've always done this event, publication, trade show, (fill in the blank)."

                  Communication audits are an essential tool as organization grow and change and try to remain responsive and valuable to their specific audiences. In an organization where several people each have communication responsibility, it is not unusual that gaps in communication or overlaps occur. A communication audit, followed by the development of an annual communication plan, can help focus communication, clarify messages and determine which communication vehicles are most effective for each target audience.

                  It's one of the few antidotes to inadvertent diversionary communicatitis.

Greater Lansing Business Monthly/December 2002

Take the Risk: Talk to the Media

By Barbara Lezotte, APR

          As I train clients and business people in how to work effectively with the media, their fear and loathing often rise to the surface.

                  "I had to talk to a reporter once and she misquoted me, so I won't ever talk to anyone from the media again," is a typical comment I hear after advocating proactive communication with members of the media. "I spent over an hour explaining an issue to the reporter, and he still didn't get the point, and made our organization look bad," is another.

                  In a recent training session with 40 managers from across the state, more than half indicated they had had negative experiences interacting with the media since they had taken on the role of spokesperson for their organizations. Very few looked forward to their contact with print or broadcast reporters. Weighing the risks involved, many were willing to forego the opportunity for positive visibility for their organization. The frustration, however is felt on both sides. Most media people genuinely want to do a fair, accurate job of reporting and presenting an organization's view, but they get hamstrung when the people who have the information they need aren't willing to respond.

                  "We have a job to do and that's why we're making the contact," said Amy Lane, Capitol correspondent for Crain's Detroit Business magazine.

                  "It's to the organization's benefit to respond and get their story out. They're taking a risk by ignoring us because that forces us to say 'such and such organization refuses to comment' or 'XYZ company did not return numerous phone calls.'"

                  Media people recognize the reasons for anxiety but say that avoidance is not a good alternative strategy.

                  "They come off looking bad, like they've got something to hide," said Detroit Free Press Bureau Chris Christoff. "There's a belief that if they don't talk to me, I won't run the story, but that's not the case."

                  Unlike politicians, most business people aren't assailed by the media on a daily basis. As with any skill, practice makes perfect and experience counts.

                  "The rules of engagement are not always as well understood by the business community as they are by the politicians," Christoff pointed out.

                  "Business people don't always know the ground rules, so there can be a knee-jerk fear of talking to reporters. Politicians tend to be more comfortable. They recognize the importance of working cooperatively. After all, whether they'll admit it or not, they depend on us and we help put them where they are."

                  Reporters understand that there are times when information cannot be shared and there may be good reasons for that.

                  "There's not a reporter around here (Capitol Press Corps) who, if you are up front with them, won't respect that," Christoff stressed. "The more accurate information you can give a reporter, the better off you will be."

                  Although larger companies are more practiced in media relations, even the big ones sometimes struggle. Small companies can work on their media skills and avoid the typical gaffs that are easy to make.

                  "Companies that are doing well tend to be more open with the media than those that are struggling," said Rick Haglund, Detroit-based business reporter for Booth News Service.

                  "When I started covering business for Booth in 1987, General Motors Corporation had one of the worst corporate public relations operations. It now has one of the best."

                  Haglund said GM usually responds to inquiries promptly and does a good job of educating reporters with background briefings without loading reporters up with "garbage."

                  "It also helps that GM is on some what of a roll, with rising market share and profits," he noted, unlike in the late '80s when the automaker was in a downward spiral. "I remember calling a high-level GM public relations official to ask him about a rumored plant closing. I don't think I'll ever forget his response: 'I don't know if its true or not,' he barked. 'and id I did know, I wouldn't tell you because it's none of your ___.' I knew this person well. He was a former journalist and good guy, but that's the way things were at GM in the 1980's."

                  Media people have tough jobs-back-breaking deadlines, never enough time or staff. Businesspeople's credibility rises significantly when they work hard to make the media's job easier.

                  "When a story appears and they've been misquoted, they should follow up and let the reporter or editor know," Lane advised. "We want to get it right."

                  For businesspeople who want to maximize their contact with the media, it's time to put fear and loathing aside.

Greater Lansing Business Monthly, March 2002

Reputation Trumps Image Every Time  

By Barbara Lezotte, APR

              Paper, scissors, rock.  Advertising, publicity, image, reputation.  What carries the most weight in determining an organization's success in the marketplace?

              Corporate executives would love it if their organization's reputation were based solely on the advertising image they work hard to portray.  Although advertising plays a significant role in the development of a corporate image, many other factors can make it or break it. In short, what everyone else is saying about the company is much more critical than what the company says about itself.

              Let me share a few of my favorite myths about "image-building" and argue that reputation and credibility ought to replace that buzz-word, no matter what type of business we’re talking about.

              1. All the advertising, public relations and marketing a budget can buy can't create a positive image for a company, organization, or individual, for that matter, if the customer's actual experience doesn't measure up.

              2. Public relations is all about two-way communication, not one-way publicity.

              3. Marketing can bring customers in…but it can't keep them coming back.

              4. Advertising can raise your customers' expectations; but if you don't meet them, your dissatisfied customers will shout it from the rooftops.

              Whether large corporation or small company, nonprofit or government agency, every type of organization develops a reputation, based largely on how it interacts with its key publics- employees, suppliers, customers and clients. A company's advertising and "image-building" is secondary because customers will constantly compare their actual experience to the company's promotion of itself. They will also listen to and observe those in the know -- employees and suppliers -- to determine if the company's claims measure up to the insiders' assessment.

              Think of the shops and places of business you patronize.  The employees have genuine smiles of welcome and convey a positive attitude and willingness to help.  They are friendly in person or over the phone.  Their personal appearance is neat, clean and appropriate, which says to the customer, "I respect you and I want to create the best impression possible because I value your business."

              Contrast that experience with this employee/customer interaction: A cashier with lips compressed in sullen resignation who never speaks a word of greeting or acknowledgement, who looks pointedly at the clock three times while processing a transaction 10 minutes before closing time and whose body language says loud and clearly,  "I had more important things to do than take care of your business right now." Lack of training?  Lack of staffing so that too much pressure is put on too few employees?  Whatever the case of such poor service, it speaks volumes about the company. Such an experience will color one's judgement about the company, no matter what the advertising jingle says.

              Unfortunately, heaping loads of advertising on an already poor reputation will make only the advertising executives praise the company to the skies.  The rest of us will continue to loathe the place because the front line service people are rude untrained and blatantly oblivious of the meaning of the word "customer service."

              Companies that work directly with the public-restaurants, banks, retailers, health care providers-have the greatest vulnerability to reputation damage, although it may happen only one customer at a time. Enough isolated incidents, however, can quickly soil a companies previously positive image.

              For companies whose clients and customers are mainly other businesses, reputation is everything. In fact, many spend little or no budget on advertising.  They don't need to.  Their outstanding service, excellent follow-up and friendly staff have the company's reputation well in hand.  They have developed credibility with their clients and customers who know they will experience a consistency in their dealings with the organization every time or nearly every time.  (No one's perfect, after all.) such organizations work hard to make sure their employees measure up. When they don't, those employees must be shown the door.  In such companies, management spends their budget first on training, making sure their employees know how to serve their customers well. They put the dollars where they will have the greatest impact on their reputation. The advertising budget only serves to enhance the reputation that has already been built, one client or customer at a time.

              In this era of super mergers, consolidations and giant corporations, the task of assuring credibility and positive reputation on an individual customer is still paramount. Customers will not give repeat business to companies that can't live up to their advertising.

              Paper, scissors, rock?  Even giant companies sometimes come tumbling down when their reputations catch up with images that were built primarily on advertising and slick publicity.