Back to Volume 14
	Sixty Years Later By Frank Walton

When Bill Ruder and David Finn founded Ruder & Finn, Inc. in 1948, they did not think of themselves as being pioneers. They thought of themselves as young family men who needed to earn a living and who wanted to do good, meaningful work. Now, over sixty years later, it is evident that they, and the companies that they formed and led, exhibited enormous capacity for innovation, resilience, and an ability to adapt to change (while earning a good living for themselves and their employees and providing many opportunities for good work).

They were watchful.

They continuously observed what was going on in society and with their clients. They were observant guardians of their clients’ and communities’ best interests. They creatively sought out—they watched out for—opportunity.

The business activities commonly called “public relations” today are, to a great extent, unrecognizable to the practice in 1948. We all know the primary factors in today’s society and business that have been transformed in recent years:

• Information technology. The range of changes resulting from information and communications technology advances has transformed every interaction between the communicator and audience. Young professionals today do not know what carbon paper is. Communication today is immediate—and you can even know if the recipient has opened your email.

• The media establishment. “The Media” is no longer exclusively a small group of large, powerful print and broadcast organizations that have unchallenged reach and authority. Media today ranges from global information distributors (Rupert Murdoch) to individual bloggers and anyone who Twitters.

• Relationships between organizations and audiences. Corporations, government agencies, and non-governmental agencies have radically diff erent relationships today with their employees, customers, neighbors and other stakeholders. The power of the relationships is much less asymmetrical; the flow of information is no longer under the fi rm control of the corporation. There is more diversity, and noise, in any interaction.

• The erosion of communication channel segmentation. As information and communications technology fractured social structures and consumer behaviors, old professional categories dissolved—advertising, direct mail, publicity, point-of-sale, and all the other old categories. Communicators—whether marketers or political consultants or fundraisers or any other field—no longer identify exclusively with one communication channel. “Integration” dominates.

The sixty years in which these changes have occurred also witnessed a revolution in the organization of communications companies. Agencies such as Ruder Finn, Inc. and RF|Binder of the Ruder Finn Group, which have survived and prospered, have learned a number of lessons, some aspects of which are not immediately obvious.

Having shared about half of the Ruder Finn Group history, and having worked closely with the founders and senior staff for thirty years, I would like here to sketch out a little of the changed environment in which the companies of the Ruder Finn Group have come to thrive.

Watch it. Nothing is private. Everything is public.

That subheading immediately above is, of course, an exaggeration. But it suggests an information environment that is characterized by a radically increased fl ow of information by many more creators and distributors, diminished control of communications channels, and greatly changed attitudes to security and private information.

We have come to accept the fact that “everyone” is watching. Not just commercial building lobbies and occasional busy traffi c intersections but also whole sections of cities are observed by surveillance cameras. Many people have security systems in homes that not only monitor for criminal break-ins but also for carbon monoxide and for failures in the electricity and central heating. EZ-Pass knows a bit about where you are driving. Amazon.com and many on- and offl ine retailers know what you buy and suggest more of the same. Credit-rating agencies watch your fi nancial status. Remember the Duke University lacrosse players’ case in North Carolina? One of the accused was able to produce records of his whereabouts through his cell phone and ATM transactions; his telephone company and bank were watching him. CNN has embraced the democratization of photo and video by the creation of I-reporters: all of us in the public with cell phone cameras and other cheap, accessible devices who can capture those images of the tornado, house fi re, or criminal mishap and email them directly to CNN for global distribution.

While government and Amazon.com have robust abilities to watch us, we, the public, also have extensive ways to watch back. “Transparency,” in relation to the operations of government and public corporations, is a dominating concept, if not reliably always a fact. Watchdog organizations scrutinize government actions, corporate policy, and media reportage. Government public hearings are routinely streamed live on the Web and transcripts posted immediately. Political action and other advocacy groups send you emails fact-checking public statements and tracking events. Th e very ability to search news on Yahoo! or Google has transformed our ability to keep track of what is going on—and to watch, through an image or video search. Consider also the impact on the policies and reputation United States after the world was able to witness— through photographs—what transpired at Abu Ghraib.

(At the time of this writing, the startling lack of transparency in regards to how certain U.S. banks have used the distribution of the fi rst half of the Troubled Assets Relief Program is the exception that proves the rule. The emerging congressional and media outcry about not knowing—not being able to watch—what is going on with taxpayers’ money will almost certainly have consequences. All of those things that we cannot watch—Where is Bin Laden? What is going on in North Korea? How far along is the Iranian nuclear weapons program? Did my cancer cells spread?—are most sinister. In a society so permeated by watching, not being able to watch something is most frightening.)

We are not only watching and being watched by government, big corporations, and our neighbors with cell phone cameras, but we are also inviting ourselves to be watched even more. Facebook, MySpace, Plaxo, LinkedIn, and many other online communities provide the opportunity for you to invite others to know you and watch over your life at times and under circumstances not entirely under your control. Bloggers of all kinds exist to be read/watched (or, in the even more revealing terminology, “followed”), and Twitterers provide up-tothe- moment announcements in case you’re not being watched/followed quickly and frequently enough. “Twitter” is a brilliant metaphor that anyone who is a bird-watcher will understand. “Twitter” suggests speed/ fl ight, immediacy, energy, single-minded purpose, and brevity-to-the-point. It is a great understatement to say that our sense of the personal, of privacy, has undergone an evolution of startling degree. Those of us over a certain age continue to be shocked by what others, under another certain age, are comfortable putting on their Facebook pages—perhaps cached for all eternity.

All this watching and being watched, in “real time” (have you ever wondered what other kind of time there may be?) undermines all thinking and theoretical formulas about public relations. Some PR people still talk about target audiences. The metaphor suggests a passive, waiting group of people huddled expectantly in the bull’s eye of an archery target, and my message, is the arrow which, with a sharpened message point, launched by the technical superiority of my bow, the strength of my arm, and the acuteness of my eye, can be projected with admirable velocity and accuracy, in a straight trajectory overcoming any insignifi cant resistance—right to the target. The simplicity of it all!

The concept of a target audience is not useless, but its simplifi cation strongly distorts the reality of how communication and persuasion really work today. Successful public relations agencies abandon the concept of the arrow (sometimes referred to as the “silver bullet”—at least to clients old enough even to know who The Lone Ranger was). With all this watching and being watched, sending out messages intentionally or not and scrutinizing the messages of others whether they want us to or not, successful public relations is a process more like the redistribution of shapes in a kaleidoscope than the delivering an arrow to the bull’s eye; it’s about successfully creating a change in the whole landscape of what’s watchable (perceivable) in the best interests of the client.

The whole mindset and metaphorical array of marketing thought has been, for more than a generation, based on an early twentieth century (or earlier) military theoretical framework (including arrows and targets). Goals. Strategies. Tactics. Weapons. Victories. Th is is a military theoretical structure that was never able to accommodate insurgencies, guerilla warriors, and non-state combattants. In fact, marketing and communications today is permeated by its own insurgencies, guerilla warriors, and non-state actors—all watching and watching out for themselves.

Better than the military metaphor, the twenty-fi rst century metaphor for the public relations person in a world in which everyone is watching—in which everyone is a watchful participant—may be that of the farmer. Watching is not just receiving visual input. Watching is also “watching out for”—being aware and self-protective and being a good steward for self-preservation and self-interest. Th e farmer—watching and watching-outfor all the time. Th ere is a goal (a linear outcome) in mind: grow those zucchinis to be harvested in the fall. But there is also a complex requirement to worry about, amend, and cope with the quality (the receptiveness) of the soil, for this season’s crop as well as for seasons to come in the future, to accommodate the vagaries of the weather, to deal with the insurgencies of the slugs and beetles—and to successfully anticipate the level of the market demand for zucchinis next season. A society in which everyone is watching is one in which you have to watch out. All the time.

Technology does change. Not just itself. But all of us.

Occasionally, still, an agency client will suggest or ask about mailing (literally, physically) a news release. Th e concept is quaint. And out of touch. Surely there are some communications that are still best suited for the United States mail service, but “news” is simply is not one of them. When I write “technology does change,” I am not observing that features of devices are upgraded, gain effi ciencies, and add new functions (sameold, same-old with a turbocharger). I mean that technology changes the whole confi guration of a process, a society—as well as the practice of public relations. Technology changed “news.” News is now the immediate (or nearly immediate) experience/perception of a development in the environment. Technology made newsreporting a nearly simultaneous activity with the event reported—not a refl ection/analysis of something in the past. Technology put a lot of journalists out of work. Technology made lots of citizens into “reporters.”

Technology has taken Th e Christian Science Monitor (and undoubtedly many more papers to come) out of physical print. Technology has upset the advertising-media symbiosis. Technology also changed public relations—not just our tools, but it changed individuals/consumers, it changed social and political power relationships, and it changed how, when, and where the professional communicator can intervene in the client’s interest.

While at some ultimate level we may agree with King Solomon that there is no new thing under the sun, it is more practical for the public relations person to act on the notion that successful communications today is not about doing the same thing with fl ashy new gadgets. We are doing something different—a new thing under the sun. Watch out.

Ghostwriting. Real New concepts of authenticity.

Some years ago, David Finn, one of the founders of the Ruder Finn Group, wrote an article for Fortune magazine making the case against ghostwriting. He presented a compelling argument for CEOs and other senior executives to personally write their own speeches and publications. Delegated to ghostwriters, the executive’s communication is not authentic. At the same time, if the executive does not write for himself, how can he possibly know what he really thinks?

We have certainly seen in recent years a number of corporate embarrassments when it was revealed that a corporate or corporate executive’s blog was really being ghosted by the PR firm. (Remember, everybody is watching.) Yet at the same time, we all acknowledge that the sheer demand, the volume of communication required from a chief executive—most notably, for example, the President of the United States—makes doing his own writing a practical impossibility.

The responsible public relations advisor needs to unravel and responsibly help the client deal with a fraught set of overlapping imperatives: 1) Transparency (discussed above). 2) Truth-telling (discussed below). 3) Authenticity (the ultimate feature of a successful brand, corporation, individual). 4) Liability (society’s legal and regulatory playbook).

A professional communicator, working on behalf of a client or boss, grapples with an odd and interesting issue of identity. To what extent am I also Him/Her? Theodore Sorensen, renowned speechwriter for President John F. Kennedy, always publicly asserts that he does not remember whether it was he or the President who came up with the imperatives, “Ask not what your country can do for you: ask what you can do for your country.” Mr. Sorenson may be graciously disingenuous or totally truthful—but the lesson to learn is nevertheless the same: Th e professional communicator (PR person) and the client need to be of one mind.

Being “of one mind” is not the same thing as “being on the same page with” or “being in sync.” Th e demands of a complex organization and its leader require a communications advisor who is not parasitically or, cynically, self-interestedly “on the same page.” Authenticity—in the face of the volume and pace of communications—requires that client and professional communicator to be truly of one mind. When everyone is watching, the partnership between client and advisor needs to be close—honest and authentic. Because when everyone is watching, nobody cuts you any slack.

Tell the truth.

Who would argue against telling the truth? No one. Who would argue against telling the whole truth? Well…

The vast majority of public relations practice over the past half-century or more has been fi rmly based on telling the truth. The commonplace standard has been, don’t say or do anything that you wouldn’t want to see reported on the front page of The New York Times. A sensible, pragmatic (if not the most high-minded) standard. Public relations agencies and professionals caught telling lies populate the graveyard of the profession.

Yet we all know that truth is not simple. Often not shared. It is not controversial to observe that diff erent perspectives, diff erent contexts, yield diff erent “truths.” The spurious connotation of the word “spin” is used to indict public relations people for cynically choosing a perspective (even a legitimate one) that best serves the client’s interests. In litigation, each party has its facts—all (usually) true. Increasingly, government mandates what a producer can “truthfully” tell about its product (Healthy? Natural? Organic? Fresh?). The Food and Drug Administration decides for which conditions a company can truthfully promote the use of a drug. Another example unresolved at the time of this writing: is whether Apple’s reports of Steve Jobs’ illness and prognosis are true. Fully or partially? And if not—can there be another value that overrides truthtelling in public communications and the media? And if so, when?

In the past it may have been easier for powerful organizations to obscure/re-direct perceptions. And some people and organizations will always deceive—at least for a while (consider Bernie Madoff ). But remember— everyone is watching. More than ever before: You can’t fool all the people all of the time. More people than ever before in history are watching out for themselves. So, watch it. Sixty years after the creation of the Ruder Finn companies, the lessons learned about successful communications turn out to be simple—for anyone willing to look.

• Vigilantly, objectively, systematically observe what is going on around you.

• Be open to what is new.

• Scrutinize and evaluate your own behaviors and practices.

• Be a responsible and conscientious guardian of your clients’ and your own interests.

• Watch out.