A long time ago, a certain vice president at a certain organization where I worked told me with great incredulity in her voice that a private foundation would never need PR. Her reasoning was simple, simplistic actually, and indicated a common misperception of what PR is.

She thought PR was only needed to attract donors, and a private or family foundation doesn’t need to attract donors.

My response was lengthy and, I can assure you, profound. But it boiled down to the fact that a foundation has more publics than just donors, and more objectives than collecting money. The money is a means, not an end. Foundations want to affect positive change, which often means raising awareness, addressing attitudes, and sparking action.

So I was delighted to see the photo of Frey Foundation President Milt Rohwer adorning the current issue of MiBiz. I’m acquainted with Rohwer as a board member of a client, and have come to know him as someone with wisdom and insight, as well as a good balance of patience and boldness.

The MiBiz article shows all of the above. He boldly challenges conventional wisdom and action and prescribes action to ensure that Michigan can turn itself around economically in the new global economy. He’s engaging the media, and through them a vast variety of publics, about a key issue of interest to the Frey Foundation board.

That’s what foundations do. That’s why they need PR.

Kudos to Lambert Edwards and Associates for hauling in two Silver Anvils from PRSA.

LEA was the only firm in Michigan to land the prestigious awards this year, one for work for Spartan Motors and the other a campaign for Zondervan. It’s the second year the LEA was alone in the state in receiving the high national recognition.

Not only is this a national feather in the West Michigan chapter’s cap, it’s good advocacy of the profession. As the brief in the Grand Rapids Business Journal and LEA’s own news release note, the campaigns were honored not just for gathering press clippings, but actual metrics. In the case of Spartan Motors, that meant a significant increase in stock value. In the case of Zondervan, the measure was increased sales of a new product.

Congrats to LEA for the awards. And thanks for demonstrating on behalf of all of us that good PR is about tangible results, not only publicity.

While area colleges are dealing with national rankings (see earlier post), Grand Rapids Community College is looking for some local love. (Note to GRCC–have the messages for the campaign on your Web site).

You’ll recall that GRCC was unable to prevail a few months ago when voters voted down a millage increase proposal. Now they have a campaign to go back to the voters, thinking that since they lost by a small margin they can prevail in August with a new vote.

I see some good in the new campaign, described in an article in the Grand Rapids Press. In particular I like the media and the message.

As for media, the direct approach involving direct mail, meetings with community members, and even door to door visits is the way to go. Mass media is best for getting people to pay attention, but FTF (face to face) is best for persuasion. It shows once again that PR MUST be more than media relations with ad support. You want people to feel close to you and your cause, ya gotta get close to the peeps.

Meanwhile, with regard to message, John Helmholdt of Strategic Communications Group (used to be called Jones and Gavan) is correct to stress not that GRCC needs the revenue to survive, but to point out to residents what the community college contributes to the entire community. Fundamental theory applies here–appeal to self interest, the public need, not just your organization’s need.

That praise aside, a few thoughts come to mind. Why didn’t people know the benefits of GRCC before they are being asked to approve to have their taxes increased? PR needs to be proactive. As a tax-funded institution, it’s incumbent to show accountability and relevance to all publics–i.e. taxpayers–all the time, not just when you need their support. This principle applies to all organizations.

Secondly, in this FTF campaign, I hope the Helmholdt and his crew, and preferably some folks from GRCC, don’t do all the talking. I hope they listen as well. It can be admirable to stay “on message,” but if your message doesn’t address the public’s resistance, your message is meaningless.

Good luck to GRCC. If they succeed, I hope the FTF campaign will provide a lesson that public relations is more than publicity, and is best evident by relationship building employed in this campaign.

It’s rare that the news media does investigative stories on itself. So it’s unusually exciting that MSNBC did an investigative report on how journalists–who are supposed to remain objective politically–have been secretly giving money to partisan political campaigns.

Relevant to this local blog–one of the reporters caught up in the story is Terry Judd of the Muskegon Chronicle.

Here’s an excerpt from near the end of the story:

At the Muskegon Chronicle, a daily newspaper in Michigan, reporter Terry Judd gave $1,900 to the Democratic National Committee in six contributions from 2004 through 2006; and $2,000 to Kerry in March 2004. “You caught me,” Judd said. “I guess I was just doing it on the side.”

His editors said they’re not sure there is an “on the side.”

“This information makes us want to think farther and more deeply about what we encourage and discourage in reporters,” said the metropolitan editor, John Stephenson. “We have always historically said, you guys can have any political beliefs you want. Just don’t wear your hearts on your sleeve or your bumper.

“Truthfully, this sort of thing may be the new bumper.”

And to think I’ve been arguing with popular PR blogger Strumpette on MyRagan. She says PR is nothing more than media relations, because we need third party credibility. I say PR is about relationships, and media relations is merely one of many tools. Credibility actually can be gained better through direct communication with our publics, IF we have a good reputation. The media does not always have the reputation to lend itself credibility. This MSNBC piece is evidence of that.

I was happy to read in today’s New York Times that presidents of liberal arts colleges will no longer participate in the annual college ranking survey conducted by U.S. News and World Report.

This national issue is relevant for my local blog because West Michigan is home to several liberal arts colleges that have done well in rankings, Calvin, Hope, and Aquinas among them.

It might seem like a bad PR move to stop providing survey data to a major media outlet that annually provides this resource for students and their parents to make college selections. The issue could be seen as one relating to reputation as well as a key driver of applications. However, I think the move is good for several reasons:

There is strength in numbers. A majority of this group of 80 liberal arts presidents has indicated they will not respond to future surveys. This prevents any single college from looking like it is bitter for being low on the list.

It’s the right thing to do. As academic leaders would know, the annual survey lacks validity. It does not really measure what it says it is measuring. The survey asks for information that may not actually affect the quality of education a student will get. In that sense, the survey is bad PR by not showing all relevant information appropriately.

It’s calling the bluff of US News. This is only one of an annoying number of “Best……” lists the magazine puts out. It’s no secret that US News is always third place among the three national newsweeklies. Has been since I visited it’s cozy offices as a journalism intern in 1985. The rankings are less news than they are a market driven attempt to sell something. But that leads to my last point:

People don’t “buy” it. The annual college ranking issue may have good sales, but people don’t really buy the information in a figurative sense. I know from my work in higher ed administration that college students surveyed place this and other rankings low on their list of influences for choosing a college. Other factors like having the right program, affordability, personal visit to campus, word of mouth from other students, and even sports success and mainstream media coverage weigh in before the rankings. Of course, there’s also the view books, CDs, and Web sites the colleges’ PR departments put out to high schoolers.

The college presidents say they will put together their own criteria and possibly have a third party gather it for a more meaningful list. US News’ editor has said he would welcome that. Either way, I applaud colleges in this case of ignoring the media. It’s the better PR move, for both ethical and strategic reasons.

Share this:

• X
• Facebook
• More

• Print
• LinkedIn
• Reddit
• Tumblr
• Email

Like this:

Like Loading...