He told me of a Zulu proverb which when loosely translated, reads:

“We are who we are because of other people.”

During the past week I met with people who have had a big influence on who I am. These men and women of the Public Relations Global Network (PRGN) (www.prgn.com) are an extraordinary group of friends, mentors and colleagues.

This year the PRGN celebrates its 20^th birthday. What began as an idea among a few agency principals in the United States during 1992 has blossomed into a network of 44 agencies with almost 1000 consulting professionals on six continents.

Those clients who have come to trust our global thought-leadership and market intelligence include Nokia, GSK, Canon, Volvo, Shell, Nestle, Barclays, Microsoft, Virgin, Ford, AT Kearny and Nintendo, to name a few.

Five original founding member agencies – HMA Public Relations (www.hmapr.com), Stevens Strategic Communications, Inc. www.stevensstrategic.com), Buchanan Public Relations LLC (www.buchananpr.com), The Fearey Group (www.feareygroup.com) and DVL Public Relations & Advertising (www.dvl.com) – still remain active in our network.

Last week, during the PRGN’s visit to Cape Town for its half-yearly meeting, it did not escape our attention that South Africa celebrates a significant milestone this week, the 18^th anniversary of its country’s first free election.

Nor did it escape our notice that South Africa is a country with a diverse array of voices, culture and identities, something we have to come to respect, not only in Cape Town, yet also in ourselves at the PRGN.

For we believe, diversity – whether that be freedom of expression in the community or the structure of an economy – is essential for meeting the challenges that confront people, business and policymakers worldwide.

Everywhere we look today, the magnitude and complexity of the world’s challenges, including climate change, food security, population growth, market volatility, community health and resource scarcity, is mounting.

The stakes for humanity have never been higher.

During the 21^st Century, like never before, risk and opportunity will go hand in hand, and only those organizations which are ready to address these challenges, will be positioned to survive and grow.

No organization in the private and public sectors should dare to take on these challenges alone. In this environment, there is no substitute for strategic advice and tactical support from intelligent minds.

As a global network of ‘connected thinkers’, the PRGN offers an innovative resource of skills, ideas and insights that makes us a valuable partner to accompany clients on their walk into an uncertain future.

No doubt those organisations which walk alone will walk fast, yet those which walk far, will have sought company for the journey. So, the question for all of us is: Who are we going to choose to walk with?

By walking alongside a member of the PRGN an organisation will:

1. Think ‘global’, yet act within a local context
2. Identify and understand the drivers of growth
3. Empower stakeholders with whom they engage
4. Target the shifting desires of consumer markets
5. Care about what legacy their actions leave behind

Nelson Mandela once said:

If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.

The members of the PRGN know this well. The diversity of our language and culture, together with our intimate knowledge of, and networks of influence in, local markets, enables us to touch hearts worldwide.

Unsurprisingly, in Cape Town and South Africa, the setting for last week’s PRGN meeting and the group’s 20^th anniversary, it has been our hearts which have been touched. And for this we will be forever grateful.

We have left behind a beautiful country:  with the voices of its children echoing in our ears, the imagery of its culture and landscapes living in our minds, and an eternal spirit of friendship stored in our hearts.

* This is an edited version of a speech Mark Paterson delivered as President, Public Relations Global Network, at the PRGN’s 20^th anniversary gala dinner at The Table Bay Hotel, Cape Town, South Africa, on Saturday, 21 April 2012.

As a boy, Evel Knievel was the personification of awesome.

The Evel Knievel Stunt Cycle was my favourite toy as a kid. The key component was a plastic contraption that featured a crank that activated the gyroscope that powered the back wheel.

The rider was a bendable rubber figure, dressed in red, white and blue jumpsuit with a little white plastic helmet for a vinyl head, a little plastic cane. You’d put Evel on the bike, crank up the gyro as hard and fast as you could and the bike would shoot off at enormous speed across mum’s kitchen lino (or the lounge room shag), off ramps and out windows.

The possibilities were endless and the crashes brilliant. The motorcycle went one way, Evel another. And he always got back on the bike. Just like the real thing – although the toy version didn’t come with same level of testosterone or a gift for self-promotion.

So much of what Knievel said about himself was untrue – and having read Evel, much of what was until now left unsaid was true, namely he was an abusive, lousy and for the most part, heartless.

But the man was good at old-school PR – albeit in a not entirely ethical way that could only work in the late 1960s and 70s.

A story.

In Las Vegas to watch a heavyweight title fight, Knievel first saw the fountains at Caesars Palace.

He decided to jump them.

But how to get an audience with the casino’s CEO, Jay Sarno?

Stakeholder Relations, the Evel Knievel way.

Knievel placed phone calls to Sarno claiming to be from a number of media outlets such as Sports Illustrated and ABC’s Wide World of Sports, asking about when this Evel Knievel was going to jump the fountains. Of course, Sarno knew nothing of this and was confused.

Knievel then created a fictitious corporation, Evel Knievel Enterprises, and a few fictitious lawyers who would call Sarno on the corporation’s behalf, annoyed that Sarno was using Evel Knievel to promote the casino and threatening legal action.

As a result, Sarno agreed to meet Knievel and a date was sent to jump the fountains.

Crisis management, the Evel Knievel way (a).

The jump was a disaster.

After a shot of Wild Turkey and a few warm up approaches, Knievel began the jump.

Hitting the take-off ramp, Knievel had a sudden loss of power which caused him to come up short, ripping the handlebars out of his hands, sending him tumbling and skidding across the parking lot.

As a result of the crash, Knievel suffered a crushed pelvis and femur, fractures to his hip, wrist and both ankles and a concussion.

But courtesy of Linda Evans’ (the same Linda Evans who would go on to star in Dynasty) vision of the crash, they had something crucial to any PR campaign – good pictures. And these were great pictures.

After the crash Knievel was more famous than ever.

ABC who initially passed on filming the jump live, bought the rights to the film – at a price way above that they would have had they televised it live.

Being a daredevil, crisis management is not a bad skill to have.

However, Knievel’s fame came to a grinding halt in the late 1970s when his crisis management plans went from capable to, well… illegal.

Another story.

Crisis management, the Evel Knievel way (b).

In 1977, Knievel’s former publicist, Shelly Saltman released Evel Knievel on Tour, a book based on recordings he had made on a tape recorder during the promotion for the Snake River Canyon jump.

Knievel was outraged because he claimed the book portrayed him in a bad light and misled the public about not only himself, but his family as well.

This is understandable. In PR we like to have as much control over ‘the message’ as we can.

What isn’t so understandable is that a few weeks after the release of the book, Evel went onto the lot of the 20th Century Fox Studios where Saltman was now Vice President and beat him with an aluminium baseball bat.

Despite his all-American stars and stripes persona, Evel was clearly not a fan of the First Amendment.

Evel pleaded guilty to battery and was sentenced to three years’ probation and six months in jail

Which brings me to my final PR observation…

PR’s relationship with the client.

PR works best when in The Wizard of Oz parlance, when the man behind the curtains pulling the levers remains hidden behind the curtain.

We do our job to make our clients look good.

Revealing how we do this to make ourselves look good does not always have the intended consequences.

His genius tweet came when he asked his followers for recommendations on “sexy places to take Liz Hurley for lunch” on one of her early visits to Melbourne during their courtship.

From talkback radio to grannies in the suburbs, this tweet had everyone talking and @warne888 became a mobile newsroom. Through this candid request for information he won us over and his followers escalated (640,000 at last count) because ‘he is down to earth, real, exciting and he’s our friend .’

The tabloids also realised that his tweets were offering them story ideas and so assigned reporters to follow his every tweet for leads. Shane and his management team worked out that this was an effective way to promote his business interests and put together a loose list of topics to include in the tweets.

Here’s how I imagine the plan to read:

• family – stuff to make it personal
• lucky spinners undies- reference but always keep it tongue in cheek so you don’t look too pushy
• Warne foundation – some pics here and there, to show its still up and running
• celebrity friends and pics from around the world – keep the media interested and show how well you’re connected
• 888 poker – online gambling is tough to promote so we’ll incorporate the brand into your twitter account and just keep it subliminal at this point
• Big bash – some inside gossip but keep professional
• Liz – be strategic (couldn’t have worked out better how many times she writes back)
• miscellaneous – comment on the news of the day, things you are doing, let Warneeeeee shine

But it is in the miscellaneous section that Shane comes undone – when he ventures off the plan and starts saying what he really thinks. Warne was exposed this month when he displayed his disdain for push bikes (innocent, carbon friendly devices) on twitter

I know the communications game has changed since I started getting daily doses of Warne888 but every now and then the old rules still apply – stick to the plan, stay on message (even if it is online gambling or undies) and please use your fame for good not evil.

The vitriolic nature of much of our social media content was brought home this week when North Melbourne Football Club’s star Sudanese recruit Majak Daw copped a barrage of salacious and acerbic accusations on Twitter and Facebook following his suspension from the team.

OK, maybe North Melbourne made a poor judgement when they announced Daw’s ban without providing any detail. Their rationale was that they would protect Daw’s right to privacy but in doing so the public’s insatiable appetite for gossip sent the social media sphere into overdrive.

The result was the very outcome that North Melbourne sought to avoid and Chief Executive Eugene Arocca says he has never seen rumours as vitriolic as those he saw posted on social media sites.
According to Arocca, the nature of the content was simply unimaginable.

This latest example of unaccountable, venomous online commentary reminds me of when Germaine Greer appeared on Australia Post Australian Legends stamp series in 2011 and a swag of social media snipers fired sexist, crude and caustic criticisms anonymously on the web.

Sure, Germaine is provocative and is synonymous with controversy but if some of those same comments were uttered at the sporting grounds, security would have escorted the foul-mouthed offenders in no time at all.
Letters editors always have (or certainly used to have) a standard procedure of checking the validity and authenticity of a letter writer’s name by checking the name and address in a phone book.

Yet somehow in the web world of low-level filters, it’s all open slather and anything goes – fact or fiction. It’s simply a matter of getting your diatribe out there and hiding behind a pseudonym.

If it’s more than half a per cent of your income, you are more generous than most, according to an article in The Age, http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-zone.

The latest publicly available taxation figures from 2007/2008 reveal that of the 12.6 million individual tax returns lodged in Australia more than 8 million did not claim a deduction for gifts to a charity. We can assume that two-thirds of Australians with a job didn’t give any money to charity that year – or at least not enough to make it worth declaring.

The real bugbear for philanthropy expert Peter Winneke, who is mounting the ‘Give’ advocacy campaign, is that the wealthy in Australia (the 7,905 people who earn more than $1 million per year) are the least open-handed.

I don’t think it will change though, until we consolidate the number of charities we have to choose from in Australia.  No wonder Australians are reticent to give – who do you give to?

Recently my partner and I wanted to start giving money to the anti-whaling movement. It’s a very specific cause yet we were amazed at the number of programs operating – WhaleWatch, Act Now, Friends of the Earth, ACF, IFAW and Sea Shepherd all came up in our research.  Try giving money to people affected by the tsunami in Japan – at a glance, Australians can pledge money to World Vision, the Red Cross, Save the Children and The Salvation Army.

I understand why so many organisations start: we are all different, with different interests and life experiences so the one size cancer foundation doesn’t work for everyone.

But, ultimately, the number of charities we now have is excessive and is leading to waste and uncertainty among potential donors about who is most capable of using their money effectively.

To stand out and get critical mass, these charities need to employ lots of staff, advertise and spend money on marketing materials, eroding the funds they have been given for relief.

I know most state openly that for every dollar they are given, 20 cents is used for administration and the rest for the cause, but I’d be interested to know if they are still achieving this.

Maybe if we saw more consolidation of effort as we did with the Queensland Premier’s Flood Relief Fund, more people would bother to give and more funds would reach those in need.

P.S. I don’t want to stop you from giving – I just want to make it easier to do.

Hemingway’s distinctive writing style, characterized by economy and understatement, has had a minor influence on my PR career.

But sadly, that’s where it ends.

As a career, PR hardly screams ‘machismo’. It is barely a whisper.

When I studied at university, the PR course was dominated by women. Of a class of about 40, I was one of four men. The other three men were never in danger of being cast in a beer commercial. While I was covered in mud on a country footy ground getting kicked in the ribs, they were likely shopping for clothes with their classmates.

This is not to say I’m a man’s man, far from it. I don’t know how to hunt, build a shelter or start a fire without a match. If you dropped me in the middle of a forest Bear-Grylls-style, I’d be dead within the hour (and there is no way in hell I’d drink my own piss).

Sure, I can use my iPhone to tweet and update my Facebook status, but if the grid went down, I’d be next to neutered.

So would most men.

Most of what we know comes not from experience, but from Wikipedia (fact: a large chunk of the second sentence in this blog entry was lifted directly from Wikipedia).

We’ve become so afraid of death that we refuse to actually live. I’ve been to an industry function where men were scared of the steak because it might raise their cholesterol – the same men whose exercise regime consists wholly of yoga and Pilates!

And we’re shit-scared to fail.

This is not entirely surprising. While Hemingway bent the world to his liking through sheer gusto, today a single impulsive tweet can cost you a career.

Maybe this is why we’re inauthentic, why we don’t take risks and challenge convention in the way that ‘Papa’ did?

Which brings me to a theory I have that’s likely to be wrong, but *#&@ it!

My theory is we’re about to enter a period dominated by the search for authenticity.

I’m a few months away from 40, and many of my peers are now moving into positions of influence.

Ours is the last generation that will remember the world before the Internet, and we’ve become nostalgic for a time that was never quite ours (Exhibit A: The popularity of Mad Men and Deadwood). Despite Don Draper’s double-life and that the show is based around advertising, what appeals to our generation is the authenticity of the time.

How will PR adjust to this search for authenticity?

How do we encourage our clients to take risks, challenge convention and not try and bury their mistakes in a blanket of weasel words?

How do we make ours a profession synonymous with authenticity?

Last year, the Public Relations Society of America listed authenticity as the number one challenge facing the industry1.

I would suggest the first thing we need do is be more authentic in our day-to-day lives and dealings with our friends, family and associates.
So, in honour of Papa Hemingway, I’m signing off and going fishing with my mates2.

Notes:
1. http://media.prsa.org/article_display.cfm?article_id=1298
2. Bullfights and civil wars were not practical at the time of writing

That’s what you call a real-life outcome of a PR campaign – even if it’s anecdotal and inexact.

The reality of the PR profession in Australia today is that too often we don’t have the budget to truly measure the outcome of a campaign and are stuck with measuring outputs, such as the volume and tone of media coverage and pick-up of key messages.

As Professor Tom Watson and Dr Peter Simmons found in a major survey of Australian public relations evaluation practices in 2004 (http://tinyurl.com/6yebxhu)  – and I doubt it has changed – the focus of evaluation has remained on outputs not outcomes. They found 89% of practitioners often or always measure the volume of communication but just 32% often or always measure resulting changes in behaviour.

Certainly by calculating total audience reach for a particular media announcement, we have a useful benchmark to compare its effectiveness with other campaigns.

But total audience reach as a tool to measure PR effectiveness is rubbery at best.

For example, we know that every buyer of The Herald Sun’s daily circulation of 395,000 copies won’t have read the particular article – perhaps buried on Page 36 as a small, single column item with no photo – which relates to our campaign.

And on the other hand, if we truly want to include potential reach, how do we factor in readership to account for the “pass around factor” where a newspaper is read by all members of household and many more people than stated in the audited circulation figures?

Surely we don’t want to get into the ridiculous position where total reach from a number of media sources exceeds the population! (see: http://tinyurl.com/4xuzybf)

At least video views and unique page views provide us with a more reliable level of readership of online media and social media tools such as the Public Relations Global Network’s utilised Radian6, Marketwire and Alterian2 can graphically illustrate the degree to which readers have endorsed, liked and responded to online news.

The fact remains, however, that the best indication of the success of a PR campaign is the outcomes – whether they be sales, market share, customer loyalty, registrations, donations, cost savings or legislation – and these can only be known if they are measured.

So, rather than focus on outputs, the challenge for communicators is to set aside the budgets and time required to evaluate the level of engagement, influence and change that great PR delivers.

At a time when governments and corporates don’t want to be seen to be using PR, it’s never been more important to accurately prove the value of work that gets people talking at a BBQ.

They were prepared, for sure. They had they hired top public relations firm Edelman. No doubt they received coaching from the most experienced legal team in the world, too.

Their strategy: open with a sincere apology to the British people, including Murdoch senior saying ‘this is the most humble day of my life’. Then position Rupert as the head of a global company that has 53,000 employees and the business in question is only 1% of News International’s revenue.

How is Murdoch senior expected to know every last detail of this tiny newspaper? He oversees many issues in a working day. This story was relatively convincing, even if he sounded like a boob and a slow old man and was clearly unfit to manage a business of this scale.

James was to fill in all the detail (as best he could) and when the questions were particularly damning he would dial up the corporate jargon/management speak and bore everyone.

He prefaced many responses with the classic line, ‘that’s a good question, thanks for asking it’ which felt so inappropriate when he was being asked if the company was continuing to pay legal fees of staff who had been convicted of phone hacking or whether they continued to subsidise wages of ex-staffers now working for the UK Prime Minister.

Yet the underlying feeling I had was everything was going to be taken care of, the Murdoch’s vast legal team would sort it out – just as they had always done. The double-act was merely for show.

Murdoch and his cronies have been buying content for stories for years, printing smut that has changed lives and won elections. This hacking scandal, however, shows how low the old man and his boy are willing to go.

Murdoch senior talked about his father (Keith Murdoch) who was ‘not rich but a great journalist’. How will we remember Rupert? To me, I will remember him as a rich man but not a great bloke.