Business mags still credible, Edelman

Informative piece from Richard Edelman on business magazines, and his conversation with Steven Adler, editor of BusinessWeek.

I pulled summaries of each point, but read the full blog yourself. It's important.

1) BusinessWeek aims to be a business information brand, not just a magazine.
2) Readership has increased substantially because of the web. The print circulation is 933,000 paid and a total of 4.7 million with the five times pass along. The digital product gets 9.5 million unique visitors a month and 50 million page views.
3) The focus is business to business topics. There are no more lifestyle stories on wine or travel.
4) Breaking news is covered, but in a different way than a wire service. “Our take is more analytical..."
5) “We aggregate any content that is free, from blogs to mainstream media. We provide users the ability to track developments and give them ownership,” Adler said. Users can read, save or add content on the topic network.

Nice conclusion, too:

BusinessWeek has taken the most radical step of recognizing that the audience now seeks to be on the field and to control its own destiny. Given the very high credibility rankings of business magazines, we need to make them first port of call for important stories.

Clarity in the Cloud: A PR story

Yesterday Avanade announced the results of a global study of more than 500 senior business and IT executives regarding their understanding, views and intentions for cloud computing.

The term cloud computing is confusing, and the noise level is deafening. But cloud is also a disruptive force and it isn't going away. Avanade believes there is a strong business opportunity as companies look to cloud computing to improve their business performance.

Unlike Dell, we have no plans to try and copyright cloud computing. However, this level of industry silliness made the task of trying to carve out a unique position on cloud computing all the harder.

Back in October 2008, I discussed with our PR team and agency partners this very challenge. As we evaluated the types of discussions taking place in the media and among vendors (Larry Ellison's rant in Sept. 2008 is classic), we realized there was an inordinate amount of debate about what cloud is and what cloud isn't. We knew we couldn't win this debate, nor would we want to. It provides little value to companies grappling with serious questions about how to leverage cloud computing to affect a business outcome.

So we applied PR 101 -- change the debate.

What we didn't see in fall and we still don't see much of today is any substantive discussion about what cloud enables -- what's the business value of cloud computing.

Bingo. We felt we landed on something no one else was discussing. And in the process, we believe we have been able to carve out some competitive differentiation on a fast-moving, fast changing technology trend.

Time, of course, will tell if we were successful, but the research results certainly has garnered some positive responses from analysts and press and served as a great launchpad to continue the discussion.

One benefit to recession: better business manners

Perhaps one positive to an otherwise gloomy business environment is that we all might be acting a bit nicer to each other.

It makes sense. Turns out that in a down economy, no one can afford to make enemies. When you don't know where business will come from next, let alone a possible future job in a insecure job market, being polite makes good business sense.

So says a piece in The Economist's Feb. 12, Businesses Become More Polite.

'Rudeness is out, and civility is the new rule in an uncertain world. The former kings of abrasive behaviour—Masters of the Universe bankers, hedge-fund traders, private-equity chiefs—have been humbled. On Wall Street, says a banker, “it’s now all about charm and openness and taking time with people.” Cocky young things straight out of the best business schools have stopped skipping interview appointments, recruiters say, and there is much less looking over people’s shoulders at drinks parties, reports one veteran. Many people, fearful for their jobs, are trying to burnish their contacts at other firms.'

Not unlike our most recent economic boom, all good things must come to an end. So is the expectations of the current trend toward politeness business.

'And as soon as things turn up again, all agree, the extra niceness will vanish.'

Enjoy it while it lasts.

The Hot Air of CSR?

The air in the Swiss community of Davos might be crisp and clean, but the Financial Times' Stefan Stern argues the deadliest greenhouse gas is the hot air of CSR.


He says that the global annual gathering of business, government, celebrities and do-good NGOs -- otherwise known as the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland -- there was renewed discussion about corporate responsibility.


My argument has been that when times are good, companies push 'green' agendas because it's the popular thing to do -- it's 'in' to be green. In tough times, there is a much different green agenda -- making money, survival, avoiding bankruptcy. Stern says "serious CSR types understand this."


But there is a difference in my mind between doing the right thing in the course of doing business and having altruistic objectives such as a green agenda. Clearly "earth-first" types will argue it's the same thing -- to do the right thing as a company is to be green.


Managers are pressed to make money while consumers are pressed to save money. But consider Stern's example of making a T-shirt. Consumers are aware of child labor issues, environmentally unsound manufacturing processes, and so on. But notice the recent news on retailing sector -- the only company showing some stability is Wal-Mart. Why? Cheap T-shirts, among other things. There is an element of consumers turning a blind eye to how products are made (no, I'm not suggesting Wal-Mart's supply chain practices are unethical).


In my mind this isn't an either/or debate. As I mentioned in my last post, many companies that have endured difficult times are companies that have demonstrated a moral compass that drives positive behavior that leads to long term viability and success.


In other words, tough times does not give license for unethical business practices. It is not a free pass to willfully pollute, to violate child labor laws and treat employees unfairly.


Richard Edelman, CEO of Edelman, a public relations firm (disclosure: Edelman is Avanade's PR firm in the Americas) wrote in the FT on Jan. 27, How to Restore Trust in Business (subscription required). In it, he says companies can no longer have as their sole objective to maximize profits.


The Edelman Trust Barometer (there is a report and several videos presenting 2009 findings) shows that business credibility is at an all time low.


I believe Edelman's point supports mine, but with a twist. First, business must focus on maximizing profit. In today's world, that means simply survival. But as Edelman says, they must do more than just focus on maximizing profit. To me, maximizing profit does not contradict doing what is right in the course of making a healthy profit, or perhaps just ensuring an existence post our global recession.

Making money ethically, with a moral compass based on enduring values (see my previous post) isn't a new obligation by organizations. But in this era of heightened scrutiny and oversight by government officials, NGOs and advocacy groups, maximizing profits while doing business the right way are now non negotiable for any firm hoping for longevity.