Introduction to Messaging

Sell More Messages

August Busch III, head of Anheuser-Busch, the world’s largest brewer,
once ended his section of an annual report with a single exhortation:
‘‘Sell more beer.’’ Interestingly, this command related to the company’s
commitment to protecting natural habitats, aluminum recycling, and
other activities, voiced elsewhere in the report. Busch was creating the
virtuous circle of enlightened self-interest. Help others but never forget
that if we do not drive our business (which is selling beer) we won’t
be around to help anyone.
It raises an important issue: how do the activities of a company and
the ways in which they are presented influence sales activity? Was
Busch stating the unvarnished truth or was his message and how it was
communicated actually likely to damage sales?
How senior managers communicate corporate messages is of increasing
importance. Indeed, everything they say is a corporate message,
dissected and analyzed by a range of audiences.What they communicate
has a direct effect on the bottom line. Consider how the Body Shop’s
stance on animal testing and fair trading has helped to differentiate
its products from those of other cosmetic retailers. Anita Roddick, the
company’s founder, is unlikely to call for Body Shop employees to
‘‘sell more moisturizer.’’ Indeed, she says: ‘‘I can’t take moisture cream
too seriously – what interests me is the revolutionary way trade can be
used as an instrument for change.’’1
Corporate communication can look to and shape the future. It
can take up indirect or long-term topics to create or maintain sales;
for example, by lobbying regulatory authorities to permit the use of
genetically modified foodstuffs.
Some dismiss corporate communication as mere tactical maneuvering.
Some argue that a company needs to be more than just the
sum of its sales and marketing parts; that a company must offer
more than just employment, tax revenue, and, of course, its goods or
services.
Academic Sumantra Ghoshal has argued that corporations create
social value. To see them merely as vehicles for shareholder value
is blinkered: ‘‘Amid a general decline in the authority of other institutions
– political parties, churches, the community, even the family
unit – corporations have emerged as the most influential institutions
of modern society; not only in creating and distributing a large part
of its wealth, but also providing a social context for most of its
people, thereby acting as a source of individual satisfaction and social
succour.’’2
Thus, if a company is to communicate effectively, it must have a clear
sense of what it is as an entity. In this sense, corporate communications
should be applied common sense.
The starting point for corporate communications is the area that
needs most attention: setting out the objectives of the business. A
snapshot of most activity would contain some or all of the following:
» donorship to charities or artistic foundations;
» corporate advertising;
» initiatives with non-governmental organizations, such as Friends of
the Earth;
» meetings with analysts; and
» local community initiatives.
If a company is unsure how its business interests are being served by
any of these activities, then both the activity and any communications
surrounding it are likely to lack rigor. In poorly communicating companies,
explanations range from the traditional (‘‘we’re doing it because
we’ve always done it’’) to patronage (‘‘the chairman thinks it’s a good
idea’’) and philanthropy (‘‘it’s a good cause’’).
It may well be a good cause. But there are many good causes
and selection must be based on rigorous criteria. Formulating a clear
objective takes good leadership; to implement and assess it takes good
management.
Often managers both fail to communicate the business objectives
and are poor examples of communication in action. Management
consultancy SKAI believes that when leaders communicate badly it is
because they:
» abdicate responsibility to the corporate communications department;
» blandly give out the ‘‘corporate’’ message, giving nothing of themselves
in either content or delivery;
» talk at too high a level, which rarely works internally;
sanitize their words; and
» don’t have a decision-making process on making information available,
and therefore never get information out in a timely manner.
At a company-wide level, corporate communications require staff to
have a clear picture of what they are trying to achieve as a business. A
consistent message should be delivered through credible channels and
timed for maximum impact. The company must:
» acknowledge business objectives;
» define the type of organization (what is the corporate culture?); and
» decide what it expects to gain from communicating either its corporate
values or its corporate activities.
This work will examine the management of reputation at a corporate
level – as distinct from brand or product reputation management. In
this way, it will look at how you as an overall organization communicate
key messages to a range of key audiences in order to enhance the achievement of
your business objectives.





The Message Backstory

Back to Beer

In the late 19th century, Adolphus Busch, operating out of St. Louis in
the US mid-west, launched what has become the world’s biggest selling
beer – Budweiser. Today that brand alone commands some 5% of the
total beer market.
Busch laid down not only the foundations for strong product and
brand development – he also worked on creating a network of business
stakeholders. As the business was much later to claim: ‘‘making friends
is our business.’’
Part of this business success lay in the vision to create first a truly
national beer brand (hitherto beers were all local), and then toward
the latter end of the 20th century a truly international beer brand. The
corporate logo featured what is termed the ‘‘A & Eagle’’ – an eagle
resting on the bridge of the letter ‘‘A.’’
Busch had a special one designed as a fob for his pocketwatch – made
from some 14 parts and featuring semi-precious stones. The whole
ensemble was very eye catching. When on business, the A & Eagle fob
attracted comment and admiration from the other businesspeople with
whom Adolphus liaised. So at a cosmetic level, Adolphus was already
pushing the corporate message.
Adolphus was operating at more than one level. Quite often, when
complimented on the fob, Adolphus would magnanimously donate it
to the other party, who would wear it with pride. This perpetuated
the corporate logo and marked out a discreet club of stakeholders: the
‘‘friends’’ of Adolphus were clearly demarcated. Of course, Adolphus
had many of these fobs made up and would have the next one in place
ready to donate it to the next admiring (relevant) person.
THERE’S A BEAR IN THE AIR
One of the most powerful and effective (non-product) messages created
was that of Smokey the bear, first utilized by the US forest service
in 1944. The aim of the bear was to prevent forest fires and was the
brainchild of a group of foresters together with the advertising council.
The bear won out over other forest creatures because of its human-like
posture and the universality of its appeal. The use and subsequent
success of the bear might appear deceptively simple, but essentially
what was going on was a sophisticated branding process. Remember
product and brand marketing was still in its infancy.
What the foresters were actually branding was not a tangible
commodity, such as coffee or wheat flour, but good practice. This
is, of course, quite an abstract process and open to interpretation.
The campaign worked because it concretized/personalized good practice
(the bear) and kept the message positive (looking after Smokey’s
habitat) rather than negative (don’t do this; don’t do that . . .).
Finally, through the right choice of symbol, it maximized the range
of the message’s appeal. So while Adolphus’ corporate branding was
discreet, targeted, and exclusive; Smokey was broad-ranging and inclusive.

The Message Profession

The more formal practice of public relations (as a business) was born
in times of pressurized media scrutiny on some major US corporates.
American journalist Ivy Lee Ladbetter initially handled PR for the
anthracite coal industry and the Pennsylvania railroad. In establishing
some principles of this work (which was essentially media relations)
he claimed to:
‘‘supply prompt and accurate information concerning subjects
which it is of interest and value to the public to know about.’’
Of course this was just a version of the journalist’s remit, which is,
according to Brill’s Content, the US magazine that monitors the media,
concerned with:
» accuracy – stories should be true;
» labeling and sourcing – information should be clear and unnamed
sources labeled as such; and
» conflicts of interest – content should be free of any motive ‘‘other
than informing its consumers.’’
In 1906 Ladbetter was hired to represent George F. Parker and his
associates in the coal strike of that year. Within this campaign Ladbetter
issued a ‘‘Declaration of Principles,’’which was extremely influential in
the field of public relations. As Eric Goldman observed, this declaration
marked the emergence of a second stage of public relations. The
public, who up to that point had been had been ignored and fooled,
now needed to be informed.

Ladbetter’s famous declaration was mailed to all city editors:
‘‘This is not a secret press bureau. All our work is done in the
open. We aim to supply news. This is not an advertising agency; if
you think any of our matter ought properly to go to your business
office, do not use it. Our matter is accurate. Further details on
any subject treated will be supplied promptly, and any editor
will be assisted most cheerfully in verifying directly any statement
of fact . . . In brief, our plan is, frankly and openly, on behalf of
business concerns and public institutions, to supply to the press
and public of the United States prompt and accurate information
concerning subjects which it is of value and interest to the public
to know about.’’
This open approach was used by Ladbetter in the anthracite coal
strike – new channels of information were open as Ladbetter provided
reports to reporters on developments of the strike after meetings.
Ladbetter, by giving out these reports, was one of the first to use ‘‘press
releases.’’

Message Pioneers: Theodore Roosevelt

Roosevelt was a talented president as regards astute messaging and used
this talent to his political advantage. It has been said that Roosevelt
ruled America from the front pages of newspapers. On coming
to power, Roosevelt came to an understanding with the press, as
he ‘‘knew the value and potent influence of a news paragraph
written as he wanted it written and disseminated through the
proper influential channels’’ (quote from veteran reporter David S.
Barry1). Roosevelt’s conservation policies in the government’s first
large-scale publicity program saved much of America’s resources
from gross exploitation. He knew how to create a story so that it
would get maximum attention, and his enemies had to develop
THE EVOLUTION OF REPUTATION MANAGEMENT 21
similar tactics. Roosevelt exploited the newsmedia and established
a new form of presidential leadership in the process.
Henry Ford
David Lewis, who wrote about Henry Ford and his public relations
techniques, states ‘‘The industrialist is revealed . . . as perhaps
the most astute self-advisor in the whole history of a land that has
produced its full share of promoters and showmen.’’2 From as early
as 1908, Ford developed a message production line within the automobile
industry. He sought publicity, which was not the norm at this time
as businesses wanted to stay as far from the public eye as possible.
This may show why Ford was so successful compared with the
competition.
Samuel Insull
Insull, a businessman who in the late 1890s relied on sophisticated
sales strategies for his Chicago Edison Company, also cut
charges to increase the use of electricity. In 1901, he created an
advertising department to deal with his messages to the public,
and in 1902 built a demonstration ‘‘electric cottage,’’ and in
1903 started the Electric City, an external community publication,
‘‘to gain understanding and good will’’ in Chicago. In
1909, Insull began using films for PR uses and was possibly the
first to do this. In 1912, he employed ‘‘bill stuffers’’ and later
used these for political messages. Insull knew that ‘‘those identi-
fied with an institution are the prime determinants of its public
reputation.’’3
Although government relations in the UK can be traced back some 200
years, the UK and rest of Europe lagged behind the US in terms of the
growth of the consultancy business.
Between the two world wars (i.e. the 1920s and 1930s) there was
a boom in the availability of consumer products – e.g. radios, automobiles
– which in turn fed a hungry media. This saw the development of
some ‘‘in-house’’ capacity to churn out a healthy supply of material that
became known as ‘‘advertorial’’ (sales promotional material dressed up
as editorial copy).
22 REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
After the Second World War, many who had been dutifully employed
in the art of propaganda looked to apply their well-honed skills to more
explicitly commercial ends. (Interestingly, in the 17th century the
Catholic Church created the word ‘‘propaganda’’ with its congregatio
de propaganda fide which means ‘‘congregation for propagating the
faith.’’)
We now turn our attention to more recent times.

INTERNAL Messages
AT&T
An example of a major organizational reshuffle came about in the early
1980s with the court-ordered split-up of the Bell system. AT&T, the
world’s largest company, which dominated America’s communications
industry, split into eight separate companies to form AT&T and seven
regional companies.
AT&T needed to change not only because of legal obligations, which
it fought against, but also because it needed to take this company
that employed one million people and develop a new strategy to
meet the new evolving technical America. AT&T gave in to the
inevitable break-up of the company and decided to use it to its
advantage with advertisements at the time announcing ‘‘we’ve been
working to make the biggest change in our lives a small change in
yours.’’
To see why a company like AT&T can make a success of a major
upheaval like its court-ordered break-up we need to take a look at its
public relations philosophy. AT&T has traditionally had great pioneers
managing social change. Arthur Page became vice-president of AT&T
in 1927 and from the outset Page established that he would have an
input to policy and that the company’s performance would be a result
of its reputation. We see here what Page meant:
‘‘All business in a democratic country begins with public permission
and exists by public approval. If that be true, it follows that
business should be cheerfully willing to tell the public what its
policies are, what it is doing and what it happens to do. This seems
practically a duty.’’4

In his 20 years with AT&T Page formulated a strategy of integrated
message theory and practice in the Bell system and paved the
way for a new company that would lead worldwide communications.
Page had a society founded in his name in 1983 when AT&T
anticipated their break-up. The Arthur Page Society is ‘‘committed to
the belief that public relations as a function of executive management
is central to the success of the corporation.’’ According to the society
Page practiced six principles while at AT&T that are now known as
‘‘the Arthur W. Page principles.’’
‘‘1. TELL THE TRUTH. Let the public know what’s happening and
provide an accurate picture of the company’s character, ideals and
principles.
2. PROVE IT WITH ACTION. Public perception of an organization
is determined ninety percent by doing and ten percent by talking.
3. LISTEN TO THE CUSTOMER. To serve the company well,
understand what the public wants and needs. Keep top decision makers
and other employees informed about public reaction to
company products, policies and practices.
4. MANAGE FOR TOMORROW. Anticipate public reaction and
eliminate practices that create difficulties. Generate goodwill.
5. CONDUCT PUBLIC RELATIONS AS IF THE WHOLE COMPANY
DEPENDS ON IT. Corporate relations is a management function.
No corporate strategy should be implemented without considering
its impact on the public. The public relations professional is
a policy-maker capable of handling a wide range of corporate
communications activities.
6. REMAIN CALM, PATIENT AND GOOD HUMORED. Lay the
groundwork for public relations miracles with consistent, calm
and reasoned attention to information and contacts. When a crisis
arises, remember that cool heads communicate best.’’
By the 1990s, AT&T with their seven regional companies had established
their product lines well beyond the original ‘‘telephone company,’’
manufacturing computers, entering publishing, and becoming
leaders in all forms of communication. AT&T adapted and adjusted
itself from a telephone company to a major player in a new digital,
24 REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
wireless, and multimedia environment. Long-time AT&T consultant
Chester Burger, on recalling how the company succeeded with their
split, states that in ‘‘the early 80s there were 1,700 full-time PR executives
within the company with a budget of some $170mn’’ and AT&T’s
public relations strategy was to defend the company as an historic
monopoly. Burger claims that:
‘‘1. Public relations strategy can’t overcome broad social factors. 2.
It is easy to convince yourself that corporate self-interest coincides
with the public interest and 3. technology is changing the world.’’5

Paid for Messaging

One of the most dramatic uses of issues advertising has been that of
Mobil Oil’s ‘‘op-eds’’ which first appeared on October 19, 1970. The
New York Times introduced a second editorial page facing the original
one and offered a quarter of the new page as space for image advertising.
These opinion editorials were placed in the New York Times as well
as the Washington Post and other periodicals. The ‘‘op-eds’’ cover all
manner of topics not necessarily to do with the oil industry, including
economic, political, and social issues important to the consumer and the
company. It was Mobil’s objective to encourage thought and dialogue
by informing the public about the oil industry while explaining Mobil’s
views on key issues of the day and by presenting responsible policy
proposals. While these public issues may seem outside the corporate
image, in a Harris survey in 1976 on how the American public regarded
40 corporations, including 7 oil companies, Mobil came out well and
was seen as the industry’s pacesetter on 19 out of 21 issues set out
in the survey. These ‘‘op-eds’’ have been a great success for Mobil Oil
and continue to run in the New York Times and other publications
today.

Believe the Message!

The 1980s introduced a new era of public relations and corporate
social responsibility. A seminal moment occurred when healthcare
giant Johnson & Johnson was faced with one of the seminal moments
in its corporate history in its classic handling of the tylenol poisonings
in 1983. This was an event which was to transform the need to manage
one’s reputation at a corporate level from being the occasional luxury
of Fortune 500 players to being a necessity.

The fundamental reason why the handling of this crisis was not an
accident of fortune can be seen in the Johnson & Johnson ‘‘Credo.’’
General Robert Wood Johnson, who guided Johnson & Johnson from
a small, family-owned business to a worldwide enterprise, wrote the
Credo in 1943. It consisted of a one-page document that put customers
first, and stockholders last, and was a refreshing approach to the
management of a business.
We believe our first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses and
patients, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our
products and services. In meeting their needs everything we do
must be of high quality. We must constantly strive to reduce our
costs in order to maintain reasonable prices. Customers’ orders
must be serviced promptly and accurately. Our suppliers and
distributors must have an opportunity to make a fair profit.
The Credo allows the company to respond swiftly, consistently, and
altruistically. For the first time, the world could see that open and frank
dealings between a company and its stakeholders in times of extreme
difficulty could ultimately be good for business.
It could be argued that this same approach (swift, consistent, and
altruistic) could also be of value when in non-crisis circumstances. The
Body Shop’s successful corporate history is testimony to this.