GO HARD, GO HOME

Investment Innovations for Sydney Agriculture

Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:46:47 GMT

By Jon Sweet, Reputation Edge.

Australia’s economic prosperity was born off the back of farming.

We live on the smallest and driest continent on the planet (apart from Antarctica). Australia has only three people per square kilometre, making us the 7 ^th least populated nation, our land is a vast and challenging place for agriculture.

Yet, according to the National Farmers Federation 48% of Australia’s landmass is occupied and managed by agricultural businesses. At present Australian agriculture is approximately 3% of GDP and around two thirds of our production hits the export market each year, delivering 14% to the nation’s total exports. Agriculture is widely regarded as one of the key industries that underpin the Australian economy.

While Australia is so sparsely populated we sit on the doorstep of Asia, the most densely populated place on earth (95 people per square kilometre) and in desperate need of a future food strategy.

As the population of the planet continues to grow, current food shortages will increase particularly in the more densely populated areas. Australia having a sparse population, strong intellectual know-how and a stable economy are in an excellent position to develop a reliable food source for other nations. This presents both opportunities for rural and regional Australia but also substantial challenges.

The Water Challenge

The future of agriculture in Australia relies heavily on how we utilise water and create innovations that improve the efficient use of this precious commodity.

With fish stocks dying in the lower Murray-Darling due to large algae blooms, intense heat and low water volumes in the river system. It’s time for us to rethink the country's approach to water management if we want to become a nation of sustainable food production.

In places like Israel they are utilising water more effectively and efficiently than Australia. The use of drip irrigation, water recycling, desalination and superior water network measurement and management practices have seen Israel become a leader in water innovation. So much so that the Californian government in 2014 signed a combined research agreement with Israel to help the state resolve its water problems. The state was in a constant struggle to supply drinking water to Los Angeles whilst not starving the state of water for agriculture. Today, the state has built desalination plants under the agreement and continues to work with the Israelis on numerous water related projects.

While Australia does employ some of the water technology that places like Israel use, are we effectively utilising all our opportunities to maximise water use? Could we be doing more with strategic partnerships ? Are we effectively using recycled water in the best way?

These are the key questions that underpin Australia’s future in agriculture. However, it feels like we have been here before, the Murray-Darling suffered the world’s largest toxic algae bloom in 1992 which was over 1,000kms long. After this event and the many years of drought that followed, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority was set up and billions of dollars spent on understanding the problem but it’s beginning to feel like we are right back where we started. Do we need to look abroad for ideas to help solve this issue or do we just need to rethink our own water management plan and strategy ?

Aging Farmers and Diversity

According to the Australia Bureau of Statistics the average age of a farmer is 56, given that the average age of workers in Australia is 39, this 17-year age gap represents a significantly aging workforce. In addition to this, most farmers are male and have been farming for around 35 years. But what does this mean?

Through years of drought and growing up to experience the stress of farms in high debt and its impact on families, youth are less inclined to take on the family farm. Young people from rural areas see city life as potentially more prosperous and less stressful than the lives of their parents.

If this shift is to continue, there’s a risk, unique knowledge and land management skills gained on family farms will be lost, as the farm will no longer pass from one generation to the next and the agricultural industry will begin to contract.

So, what does the next generation of farmers look like? Well, if university enrolments are to go by the average farmer will be female. In 2018 a report from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency stated that 52.7% of course enrolments in Agriculture Environment and Related studies were female. The report also states that this area of study has the largest reported pay gap of any industry.

To future proof Australia’s agricultural industry greater efforts need to be placed on encouraging women to lead farming operations, including closing the pay gap. Instead of the farmers looking to pass the family farm on to their sons, they will be passing on the farm to their daughters to build Australia’s sustainable farming future.

However, will encouraging more women on to the farm be enough to replace Australia’s aging farmers? Does the culture of our rural communities need to change to build the next generation of farmers?

Innovation, Investment and Government Spending

According to the OECD in 2017, Government support represented just 1.34% of total farming income in Australia. Yet, farmers in the US received 9.44%, in China 21.34% and Japan 43.07%. In addition to this, Australian producers face tariffs and other trade barriers to export. Even in these tough market conditions Australian farmers manage to compete, exporting 65% of the country's food production. So, our farmers are some of the most efficient in the world but would supporting our farmers gain greater market share?

Propping up industries with government support doesn’t tend to end well and this is very much the case for Australian agriculture. It hasn’t been all that long since the wool crisis of 1990-91 which resulted in a market excess of 4.8 million bales of wool. So, creating price floors or subsidies is really not the best approach to supporting our farmers.

What Australian agriculture needs is greater and fearless government spending on innovation in agricultural technology. Our focus on farming innovation needs to create technologies that will help our farmers locally and can be exported to improve food production globally .

Channelling government spending on agriculture into the right innovations will underpin the prosperity of the agricultural industry in Australia. However, this begs the obvious question, what are the right innovations to choose?

These are the main challenges in agriculture; water, an aging workforce and strengthening innovation through directing strategic government investment . If we can resolve these issues, there will be very little to stop agriculture from once again leading the way to economic prosperity.

Navigating keyboard warrior voyeurism and its impact on leadership

mgell@reputationedge.com.au (Mark Gell) — Wed, 18 Aug 2021 23:49:36 GMT

In this day and age of smart phones, social media and instant messaging, all of a sudden everyone is an expert. Leading and charting a course for others to follow in difficult circumstances is hard enough without a barrage of so-called experts telling you that you are not on the right path.

We have journalists that no longer report the news as they are part of making the news. We have so called ‘social media’ celebrities or ‘influencers’ that proffer a view on everything despite having no idea what they are talking about.

Upon hitting a key on a keyboard, a leader can go from hero to zero overnight.

According to one political leader Armen Sarksyan of Armenia, who also happens to be a physicist, we are living in a world where political parties, institutions and linear reason-based processes appear to be less important than popular movements, beliefs, emotional connectivity, and social media impact.

According to Sarksyan in an interview in the Financial Times in 2018, “A lot of things in our lives have quantum behaviour. We are living through a dynamic process of change. I think we have to look at our world in a completely different way.”

As a leader, how does one move forward in a quantum world where nothing is certain and where you can be dragged down for every decision you make?

Sarksyan is busy trying to prove his theory of quantum physics as it applies to society, and he is trying to develop ways of managing political dynamics. Even despite his theories, Sarksyan still believes “You have to lead by your example and vision and ideas”.

Society use to hold up leaders, whether they were business, community sporting or political leaders, as superheros. They possessed special skills or inner strength for which others cannot access. They can move mountains and lead people towards a vision or a promise. They are wise, decisive, prepared to take risks where others are not willing, or were they?

We are now living in an environment where leaders can no longer hide. They are observed from close and afar and every action is scrutinized and played over and over in our digital universe.

While leaders can be very popular of course, on the flip side, if a leader fails, they usually find themselves in a very lonely place. The old adage: “Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan, and I’m responsible” as quoted by John F Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs failure is more relevant today as it was in 1961. Evidently, the former President woke up to hearing the news of the failure of the Bay of Pigs and was brought to tears.

After all, leaders are human.

Our opinions of our leaders are often developed from what we read, observe and our interaction with others based on what is in the public gaze. It is what we read in the papers, online or what we observe in a well scripted public presentation, some seven seconds of which may make the television news that evening, or a “You Tube” clip. Our view of a person may be based on what keyboard warriors have said about that person on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook.

We are now seeing the advent of narratives being completely made up and pushed through traditional and social media platforms as being the truth, to later find out they were complete fabrications.

As one of my mentors described: “Social media is the new weapon of mass destruction.”

To a certain degree, our leaders have become objectified, de-humanised and the subject of great debate on their views, attitudes, what they wear, how they look and not necessarily what they believe in, or for what they stand for in life. This is a serious hurdle for any leader in the modern era that has a large public profile.

We no longer judge people on character, or check to align what they say with what they do.

Throughout my career I have seen people who have built strong public profiles and consider themselves leaders in their chosen field only to disappear as fast as their rise to public prominence. In some cases, I have known people to take their own life rather than face public humiliation based on uninformed debate of someone’s character.

It used to be that “today’s news is tomorrow’s fish and chip wrapper”. But in the world of digital storage, whatever someone says, or does, is in the public gaze and is instantly available, and more importantly, on the public record forever. If a leader makes a stumble in the modern world there is immediate opinion, immediate debate, and a very long-lasting record of what supposedly happened.

People are being held accountable to what they said 20 years ago in the new age of the digital footprint.

Furthermore, the cycle of relevance when it comes to the public gaze is getting shorter. This can be an advantage in some circumstances, but in others it can be a major disadvantage as keyboard warriors and social media “trolls” hit the digital mediums with speed and venom without a care for the impact or damage their so called ‘informed’ opinions can have on a person’s reputation.

A person who is a very genuine individual, a leader who has taken years to build their reputation can have it smashed in minutes by a troll that frankly does not give a dam, nor have any connection with the leader they are trashing. It has almost become a sport.

This is a very challenging world for any aspiring leader.

And no sector of society is immune.

The pressures on modern day leaders are increasing. All leaders are human. They have the same strengths and weaknesses as everyone else. They just manage it differently. This doesn’t mean everyone possesses the skills to lead. But it does mean that if people want to take on leadership roles, they can find it within themselves to develop their own qualities so that people see them as leaders.

What the public see in a person is the tip of the iceberg. What we don’t see is the true person behind the leader. The character, the human that has become the leader. Below the surface each leader has their own idolism, faith, morals, skills, drive, and ethos. There are no doubt mistakes that have been made, lessons learnt, regrets and a bunch of people that have supported them along their journey and others that have departed along the way.

It is these qualities that make the leader. The human qualities and frailties that build the character and propel leaders from the ordinary to being extraordinary.

So how do leaders navigate the world of narratives?

I offer three simple rules to remember which I impart to leaders I counsel.

The first is do not stray from your core beliefs. As soon as leaders stray from their core beliefs people can see it, sense it and they will respond to it (probably) in a negative manner. It’s like providing an open door for people to walk through and criticize.

The second rule is don’t believe in your own popularity or power, in other words remain humble. Often what can happen when a leader gets into a position of power, they forget from whence they came. Staying grounded assists leaders to maintain perspective and to listen to others so they can maintain perspective.

The third is to resist overexposure. I’ve witnessed this many times. Once leaders get some exposure, they are open to more exposure to the extent that they get asked questions on everything, and they wander into issues or debates that are bigger than themselves – only to come out the other side shattered.

It’s a fine line between building reputation that enhances your personal and your company’s brand and over exposure that sends the digital commentariat into a feeding frenzy. We are also witnessing the rise of leaders that don’t really care what is said about them and just continue to stay their course no matter what the consequences of their actions.

One thing is for certain. In today’s environment, more than ever, there is no place to run or hide. The keyboard warriors will find you and do their best to undermine your agenda. Today’s leaders need to be more than resilient, they also need to be able to dance from moment to moment, while staying focused on their end goals.

Mark Gell is a Founder and Partner of Reputation Edge. He has provided counsel to political leaders, CEOs and Boards for almost 40 years, www.reputationedge.com.au .

What’s the Difference Between PR and Marketing?

Wed, 18 Aug 2021 23:37:31 GMT

“Publicity is absolutely critical. A good PR story is infinitely more effective than a front-page ad." Richard Branson.

Simply put, the difference between public relations (PR) and marketi ng is as follows:

PR is focused on delivering strategic, tactical and routine messages to stakeholders in order to create, enhance and protect the positive reputation of your company as a whole. The goal is trust.
Marketing is focused on promoting the specific features and benefits of your product or service to customers for the purpose of generating sales. The goal is revenue.

PR raises your profile and achieves recognition, status and access in the market for your people, your company (or brand) and your product. In this way PR is an indirect channel, whereas marketing is a direct channel, to sales revenue.

PR and marketing are highly complementary and can overlap. PR pros frequently work collaboratively with marketers, advertisers and content creators, which possibly adds to the confusion here, however, there is a distinct difference in the scope and also the skills used to achieve the end results.

Public Relations is broader in its remit; marketing is narrower.

PR works with the currency of influence; marketing works with the currency of the P&L.

PR typically focuses on earned and owned media channels rather than paid, that’s to say we target opportunities like speaking engagements and news stories, and we also use EDMs and social media. Marketing typically focuses on paid channels like advertising, sponsorship, market research, focus groups and giveaways.

The superpower that underpins PR is the power to harness facts and narratives, comments and opinions, to exert influence on people, even to the point of changing their minds. PR messages tend to be educational and positionally persuasive, e.g. the story of the founder’s journey, winning an award, thought leadership. Success can be hard to measure with hard metrics and results are borne over the long term.

You tend to know who has good PR ... and who doesn't.

Marketing’s superpower is the power to harness a call to action to get people to purchase. Success is generally measured by increased sales revenue and can be realised in the short term.

PR pros are wired to the possibilities that your messages could be vulnerable to misinterpretation, complaint, attack and political appropriation. Our reputation management agency is trained in crisis communications and often support companies through large transactions like IPOs and takeovers and important transformations like CEO change, litigation and insolvency .

Public Relations is the art of getting someone else to say you’re good … without paying them to say it.

Most of the time, however, good PR is the result of small things done regularly and done well. Like posting on social media , speaking at industry events, sending out that newsletter and writing that media release or blog.

Every business needs a PR strategy. Why? Because PR is your voice. And if you don’t shape your stakeholders’ opinions of you, someone else will. Contact Reputation Edge to handle your public relations strategy.

Top 5 PR Trends to Watch in 2021

Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:27:22 GMT

By Jonathan Sweet, Partner

It’s stating the bleeding obvious to say things have changed in 2020 and if someone says the word “unprecedented” just one more time, I’m going to scream! However, the challenges for PR in 2021 look set to remain.

The world continues to move more into a physically disconnected and more virtually connected place than ever before. The hyper digital world built on multichannel platforms and a media landscape that gets more fragmented by the day means it’s harder for brands to be seen and heard.

Algorithms that feed us only what we want to see have helped to create a divided society, but also the ability to microtarget messages, personalise content and build a relationship with an audience creating unmatched opportunity.

Looking forward to 2021, means understanding how to get even better at digital communications than we did in 2020. The good news is 2020 (is over, yay!), but it taught us a lot about how to stay connected in this disconnected world. Digital communications channels improved at the speed of light last year and will continue to improve.

Keeping this in mind, here are my top 5 trends in PR for 2021:

Making it Personal

Personalisation at scale is referred to as the holy grail of marketing. Now more than ever this has become a reality and the results are real. A recent report by McKinsey found that “personalization leaders have found proven ways to drive 5 to 15 percent increases in revenue and 10 to 30 percent increases in marketing-spend efficiency.”

However, as communications becomes more personal there are two thing that can occur. Firstly, it can get a little creepy if you are not careful. Just because we have the data and understand what might be happening in a someone’s life doesn’t mean we can’t overstep the mark.

Secondly, as we create more personal messages, we are asking customers to have more of a relationship. And when you‘re in a relationship there is nothing worse than the silent treatment. Response time and how you resource any personalisation strategy is critical not only from a timing perspective, but also to ensure the messaging that goes out is still on brand and appropriate for mass consumption.

Influencers and Message Consistency

The purpose of using influencers is to create a sense of authentic communication from a trusted source to the target audience about the brand or product. This is great in theory, but what happens when influencers step outside the values of the company or the brand? This can happen for a variety of reasons and most frequently they are innocent mistakes or misunderstandings about the company, brand, or product.

The key here is taking the time to give a clear briefing, work through key messages and help the influencer to fully understand the product or brand, and what is important. Sending some notes and a product for trial and hoping for the best can have some unanticipated result.

Online Events: Pre-Record But Get it Right

For the first time in 2020 we witnessed virtual conferences come online (pardon the pun!). Some of these went well… and others... not so much. Committing to spending the entire day at your PC is a huge ask for any audience but we will continue to see these events in 2021.

The key to a successful online event is high quality pre-recorded content that’s engaging and creative. A day of eight one-hour pre-recorded speeches, each person reading from an autocue with the same logo in the background, is good for insomnia, but not engaging!

Shoot content in relevant and varied locations for each of the speakers and mix it up with online breakout rooms that encourage more personal two-way conversations or discussions. Think of each of the sessions as if they were in a television series that tells a story about what the organisation is looking to communicate rather than disparate speeches.

Managing a Crisis

Just about everyone in business learned a little about crisis management during the pandemic last year. This has reinforced the need to have a robust approach to crisis management .

In 2021, it’s time to assess the learnings from the crisis that was, understand your approach, and assess what worked and what didn’t. While the issues of last year’s crisis are still fresh, review your organisation’s crisis plan and update the approach. As they say, “failing to plan, is planning to fail!”

Creativity is Still King

Relevance and creativity are the centre pieces of a strong PR strategy . Developing communications that elicit the right emotional response over sprouting product benefits or company values are as crucial now as they ever have been.

It’s important to remember that what worked in 2020 may not work in 2021. So, doing a critical review of your communications strategy should be a top priority. Constantly check new creative approaches with your audience and don’t be afraid of change.

Contact Reputation Edge to stay ahead of these PR trends.

Reputation Solutions and Crisis in PR Tips

Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:21:26 GMT

Tip of the Month: During a Crisis Reflect Before you Respond

By Mark Gell – Director and Co-Founder

All too often when organisations are confronted with a crisis they tend to act before they think. Pulling the crisis, management manual off the shelf, blowing the dust off and getting into action can sometimes override some of the most basic thinking that needs to be undertaken.

And without the most basic thinking you, and your company’s reputation can be on the line.

Three simple steps of managing a crisis are frequently thrown out the door as people go into “doing” mode.

Step One: Get the Facts – What Happened?

In a crisis people jump to conclusions about what happened and make statements without checking the facts. Crisis management situations are fluid enough without your own people making it worse by trying to second guess what happened or make assumptions about what happened based on something they may have read on social media.

To get the facts ask and answer these easy questions:

· What happened?

· When and where did it happen?

· How did it happen?

· Who or what was responsible for it happening in the first place?

The bigger the crisis the bigger response by third parties and speculation can lead to reputational damage to your company.

Step Two: Reflect Before you Respond

Once the facts begin to take shape, you are in a position to begin communicating appropriately. If you don’t have all the facts, that’s what the company should say.

It is very important that only nominated spokesperson should speak on the company’s behalf. There have been cases where people on internal and external social media forums have made statement concerning events which don’t align with “what happened”, but rather speculate as to what they think happened.

This can be very dangerous from both a legal and a reputation management perspective. Worse still, media can often use the expression “people close to the company said” which can undermine the company’s official explanation about what happened. Feeding this speculation can take control of the issue away from the company.

In some crises, relevant government authorities also get involved, and their spokespeople may comment. Coordinating any comment with all relevant stakeholders is one of the key elements of reputation management during a crisis .

Step Three: Less is More

Less is more during a crisis. Stick to the facts, don’t speculate, and don’t cut across the areas where government authorities are responsible. Emotions run high during a crisis, and people get tired and stressed very easily. When push comes to shove, they can say things they later regret.

Finding the right balance between answering questions that give the appropriate level of detail to the media and other stakeholders is paramount. Rather than providing chapter and verse information which can be misinterpreted, taken out of context or, even worse, used as a misinformation campaign against the company, stick to the information necessary to keep people informed.

Contact Reputation Edge for your reputation management needs.

Volvo Leadership Profile

Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:14:38 GMT

What keeps CEOs awake at night?

It’s tough at the top. Each month we ask senior business leaders about the critical business issues and challenges that are keeping them awake at night. Stephen Connor was appointed Managing Director of Volvo Car Australia on January 1, 2021. Stephen has more than 20 years of car industry experience in Australia, the UK and the Middle East.

“My biggest headache currently is the planning uncertainty created by the global pandemic. The ability to develop a plan and execute it has been turned upside down by Covid19.

“In February we were due to hold two conferences for our dealer network and operations staff, but due to the uncertainty on state borders staying open we’ve had to turn them into virtual events.

“We are trying to plan another conference in July because I believe you can’t achieve the same level of engagement and interaction on Zoom. In the current environment I believe occasional face-to-face meetings are more important than ever, especially when you are trying to communicate your business strategy for 2021.

“Another major challenge for me heading into 2021 is the effects of Covid on staff wellbeing and how we support our staff through another year of uncertainty. There is emerging evidence about the psychological impacts on staff having to work from home compared to the stimulus and human interaction of the office environment.

“How we manage this and work with our people to tackle issues like Covid burnout will be a key priority on my agenda this year.

“Looking ahead in 2021, my key strategic focus is executing Volvo’s electrification strategy. By the middle of this year our existing range of pure petrol and diesel cars will be replaced by models which will have some form of electrification, including mild-hybrid, plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars like the XC40 Recharge.

“This is in line with Volvo’s global electrification strategy to improve the quality of air in our cities.

“It’s great that Australians are starting to embrace various forms of electric cars, but I am concerned that state and federal governments are not moving as quickly to support the rollout of charging infrastructure as more electric cars and hybrids hit the market over the next few years.

“I’m also troubled that state governments in South Australia and Victoria are hindering electric car adoption by imposing new road user taxes for electric and hybrid vehicles.

“In the short term I believe Australia should look at Norway and California which are supporting electric car penetration with incentives like financial discounts, free charging and tax reductions.”

*Reputation Edge is the PR agency of record for Volvo Car Australia.

The Edge Digital Agency Studio

Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:06:40 GMT

Introducing “The Edge” Broadcast Studio

By Mark Gell – Director and Cofounder

Reputation Edge has built a broadcast quality studio at our offices in North Sydney. The Edge studio offers live-streaming at broadcast quality and the ability to record for uploading onto internet or other social media sites. The studio can be used for:

Hosting Live Webinars

Presenting a seminar to a live audience and can be streamed live or pre-recorded to be produced and uploaded at a later date.

Media Training

Preparing executives, CEOs and board members to face media on issues or general topics of interest. Presenting in front of a camera is a great learning experience to hone interview skills.

Presentation Training

Like media training , watching yourself present as if you are in front of an audience can help improve presentation skills, and enable you to see what works for you and your presentation style.

Results Presentations

Increasingly, listed companies are presenting their results in virtual format, particularly with COVID restricting the movement of people. With broadcast quality, your audience can hear and see what you are presenting with that extra clarity.

Internal Messages

Have an important message to get out to the people in your company? Stream it live, or post produce by having a facility that provides quality and quick turnaround is at your fingertips.

Live to Air Forums and Discussions

Looking to explore new ideas with customers or other stakeholders ? Holding a forum to get discussion around new products, services or issues is a great way to explore new territory.

Deep dives into current affairs and reputational issues

We live in a world where current affairs and reputation issues are debated in mainstream media and on social media platforms, sometimes without structure or missing facts. Getting your message across can be drowned out unless you have a forum to get your views across.

Reputation Edge can work with you to quickly develop high level visual content to assist in building and managing your company’s reputation .

For further information, contact Reputation Edge online or Call Mark Gell at 0419 440 533 .

Pandemic Communication Strategy for Businesses

Wed, 03 Feb 2021 14:55:23 GMT

Managing Proactive Media Relations in a Pandemic

By Patrick Southam, Partner and Co-founder

Planning proactive media relations and PR in a news cycle dominated by the global pandemic can be a tough assignment. On most days you may struggle to cut through or gain attention for your organization in the media. However, with a bit of planning and common-sense it’s still possible to stay, get coverage, to tell relevant stories and to continue building goodwill even during this crisis. Here’s a few communication tips from the coalface.

Personalise your Pitch

Journalists, bloggers and tailback radio producers have never been busier and more under pressure than during Covid-19. They’re also receiving lots of pitches from organisations and PR agencies looking to hitch their wagon to the pandemic. So, don’t be tone deaf by making a badly targeted pitch.

The last thing a busy journalist wants to receive in her inbox is a general PR pitch sent that may have been sent to half a dozen people. Personalise your communications pitch. Tell the journalist or producer why a recent article or segment they did resonated, and how it connects to the story you are trying to pitch. In doing so, you demonstrate to journalists you value their work, and you make their job easier by connecting the dots. Understanding this dynamic is crucial as you prepare to make your communications pitch for media coverage.

Be Relevant and Interesting

Ask yourself a few questions beforehand, such as: “Is this the right time to be pitching this story to this journalist or blogger?”, “Why is it different or newsworthy to a busy journalist in a COVID dominated news cycle?”

As you develop your communications pitch, identify what value you can add. Journalists and bloggers will usually respond favourably if you have something helpful to share with their readers. This can include data, trends, interesting insights, or even a unique experience about how COVID-19 has affected your business. This approach helps make their job easier.

Do your Homework

Do your homework before pitching. Read recent stories and posts written by the journalist or blogger, and explore anything relevant for your pitch. Scroll through their social media channels to find out how they interact with those who ask questions and what type of visuals they share.

Journalists will appreciate that you did your homework and made an effort to address their subject matter interests or preferences.

When to Pitch?

In my experience making your communications pitch between 9am-10am is the best time to get the attention of busy journalists. Avoid pitching late in the afternoon when deadlines are looming. For talkback radio, it’s best to pitch to the producer well before the show goes to air on the day, or even the day before.

And remember, starting your pitch with ‘As the world struggles to respond to the COVID-19 crisis, . . .’ doesn’t necessarily make it relevant!

Non-COVID Pitching Etiquette

The pandemic dominated global media coverage in 2020, but in 2021 there is growing public appetite for non-COVID stories as COVID overload gains traction. This is increasing as the Australian media’s attention focuses on vaccines and recovery. But PRs and media relations staff should avoid “tone deaf” pitching at all costs. The media and public are open to positive, good news stories, but organisations should avoid being seen to over-sell, or to be overly commercial.

In the current environment some journalists may even expose what they consider to be “inappropriate” or bad taste pitches. Reputation Edge can assist organisations and brands with developing appropriate messaging and targeted media outreach .

For expert advice and assistance with planning and executing your media relations programme contact Patrick Southam on 0419 415 998 .

How to Handle Investor Relations During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Wed, 03 Feb 2021 14:42:31 GMT

Investor Relations Teams Must Keep the Faith in 2021

In crisis management simulations we often train for grey rhino or black swan events. The investor relations community is even debating whether COVID-19 is a black swan or grey rhino event. Why don’t we just agree, COVID-19 was a world disrupting event that had us all having to rethink the way we do things?

We have just come through what is probably one of the most fluid periods in recent history, at least in my history, driven by uncertainty and swift changes to the way we do things, all driven by COVID-19.

During 2020 we saw corporate expressions like “pivot” and “agile” get a work out as people had to adjust to the new way of working.

Sitting at home, locked in your new world distracted by your kids, yet also having to function and deliver the same level of service to your customers, stakeholders, and in the case of investor relations practitioners, to your investors and sell side brokers.

Adaptation is key and the phones, emails and Zoom, or whatever platform you use, became your method of communicating.

Investor relations teams had to pivot by presenting their company’s results and AGMs online; they did virtual roadshows and held buy side lunches online. Investors usually like to see the colour of a CEO’s eyes when presenting their results and other matters, but alas in 2020 it was not to be.

So now the world has pivoted, and we have entered 2021 with new enthusiasm, just to find out that it is going to be very much like 2020.

As we enter the annual result season, markets are being more forgiving and are looking through the impact of COVID and more towards the fundamentals of your business. The market is asking questions such as:

· How well did the company respond to COVID?

· Will the company adjust its business model to cope with the new future?

· Can the business generate cash during a highly disruptive period?

· Are management up to it?

Interestingly, stock markets have shrugged off the disruption, the money printing presses have been ramped up, and the vaccine is on its way, so we can all sing hallelujah. Or can we?

The full impact of COVID has not penetrated the markets as yet. So far, we have only seen the shorter-term impacts. Some companies have been hit harder than others. International travel and smaller businesses come to mind.

Investor relations practitioners will need to be on their game. Now more than ever they will need to understand what the buy side and sell side are thinking, and what they are prepared to tolerate in terms of shorter-term earnings impacts versus longer term value creation.

For investor relations practitioners to keep the faith, they will have to work extra hard to maintain the attention and devotion of their investors and sell side supporters.

Time will tell, but I suspect there will be some causalities as well as some companies that will shine during what is a very fluid period for investors and companies alike. Contact Reputation Edge to manage investor relations during a pandemic.

Investor Relations for Banks

Thu, 08 Oct 2020 15:43:32 GMT

By Patrick Southam, Partner, Reputation Edge.

First published in Mumbrella .

As I was following media coverage of the Hayne Royal Commission into Misconduct in Banking and Financial Services this week, I couldn’t help but recall my own experience working for two of the big four banks in senior corporate affairs roles.

During my time as head of corporate affairs for a major retail bank I was referred to a senior financial adviser who prepared a financial plan for my wife and I. In a nutshell, this planner recommended we transfer our super into the bank-owned wealth management business and take out a big loan against our home to buy negatively geared shares. We didn’t follow his advice.

In 2018 ASIC banned this planner for four years after determining he “had a fundamental lack of understanding” of his obligations under the Corporations Act. Bullet dodged .

During a media training workshop I ran at another bank for senior executives, the timing of passing on Reserve Bank interest rate reductions to customers was discussed. In those days all the banks routinely delayed passing on rate cuts for up to 30 days, but they immediately passed on rate increases. The banks knew their customers and the media hated this behaviour, but they did it anyway. I recall a very senior bank executive telling me “This is a non-issue for us, our customers are very sticky.” I was flabbergasted by the arrogance, but he was right. One in two Australians still banks with their first-choice bank.

These personal experiences were reinforced as I followed the royal commission hearings, and read the subsequent report.

The royal commission has highlighted the enormous gulf that exists between the banks’ culture and customer/community expectations. Building bridges to span this yawning gulf and restoring the public’s trust will be a huge task and will take many years to accomplish.

So, how should the banks approach what will be a long and painful journey to absolution? Here are a few suggestions based on seven years spent working at the coalface in the banks.

Get back to basics. First and foremost, banks are custodians of people’s money which they are trusted to look after, and lend responsibly. Hayne’s report demonstrates the banks have lost sight of this simple truth.

Devoting resources on issues such as climate change, domestic violence, indigenous affairs or #MeToo might impress some “societal stakeholders”, but it’s not core business. It’s doubtful Commonwealth Bank customers and shareholders were captivated by the bank’s internal spat over support for same-sex marriage .

Immediately ditch any marketing campaign in the wings that “celebrates” how Australians help each other or try to convince people there’s more than to life than money. Feel good campaigns like Westpac’s 2018 “ Helping hands ” effort don’t discuss what the banks actually do day-to-day. And in the current hostile environment, they are more likely to be counter-productive than “brand-enhancing”. Banks are seriously on the nose, and Australians can smell corporate BS a mile away.

In the short to medium term, the banks will be better served by spending more time and dollars on clearly communicating to the public how they are fixing the systemic problems identified in the Hayne report. Action, not rhetoric, is required.

As Hayne pointed out in his report, a root cause of the banks’ current difficulties is the dominance of their aggressive sales cultures underpinned by targets and incentives. In the aftermath of Hayne, banks must have one clear goal: adding value for customers. Pushing product at all costs, even if the customer doesn’t want or need it, is about greed, not the customer.

Shareholder value must be seen as a result, not the goal. Every employee in a bank must have a clear line of sight as to how their work is adding value to customers on a daily basis. Any jobs that are not adding value to the customer should be reviewed.

In 2016-17 Australia’s banks spent almost $7 million trying to fix their image and ward off the Hayne royal commission, including the launch of the “Better Banking” campaign. The strategy had no effect on consumers or public perception and resulted in a new $6.2 billion bank tax imposed by the government. In the aftermath of the Hayne royal commission, the time has come for the banks to ditch the spin and embrace meaningful and lasting changes that will benefit their customers. The public will judge them by their actions, not words.

Ways to Improve Brand Reputation

Thu, 08 Oct 2020 15:38:43 GMT

By Jon Sweet, Reputation Edge.

A reputation is an animal that you create; you never quite have complete control over it, but you can influence its shape and direction.

Most people are full of great stories about businesses with bad reputations, they’ll even launch into tirades about catastrophic environmental damage, human rights violations, financial disasters or even advertising brain farts that humiliate a business. However, at the average barbie, it takes a little longer for people to talk about companies with the best reputations.

This is generally because people are more likely to share negative experiences than they are positive ones, which in turn makes a good reputation even slower and more difficult to build.

So, what does a good reputation look like? A good reputation is built on a strategy that considers the organisation’s entire sphere of influence. Broadly, each organisations sphere of influence is made up of key stakeholder groups (generally these groups are media, government, activists and lobbyist groups, employees, industry associations, affected communities, competitors, suppliers, customers and investors). Organisations with strong reputations understand the material issues of each stakeholder group and have developed strategies to address these issues.

If the business generates interest and builds positive sentiment focusing on the key issues in each stakeholder group it can distinguish itself from competitors, build resilience, encourage loyalty and improve its longevity. Ultimately, focusing on the key issues that are important to stakeholders is what shapes a good reputation.

To understand if an organisation is succeeding and building a strong reputation it’s key to build in a measurement capability or reputational dashboard to measure the value that’s being delivered.

There are plenty of measures that can be used for understanding your reputation, but the key here is really to ensure that all groups are being measured. However, as your reputation is built on the opinion of others, it’s important to be focused on word of mouth, this can be through tracking Net Promoter Score, conducting satisfaction and engagement surveys, though sentiment ratings, tracking reviews or through social media listening tools. This provides a good source of both qualitative and quantitative measures that enable you to understand if you’re influencing the stakeholder group in the right direction.

The truly challenging part about building a successful reputation is that it really isn’t just about one aspect of your organisation or one stakeholder group.

Building a reputation is all about getting the right messages to the right stakeholders, to ensure all the organisational influences are heading in a positive direction.

The Dreamworld PR Crisis Management

Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:39:39 GMT

By Patrick Southam, Partner, Reputation Edge.

If there’s one early lesson to emerge from the management of the Dreamworld theme park crisis by its owner, Ardent Leisure, it’s that companies must be seen to be in charge of their own crisis.

After 30+ years working in the media and communications industry , I’m constantly astonished at how unprepared some major companies are for a crisis or an event that can seriously damage their reputation. Many organisations remain either completely unprepared, or significantly under-prepared for responding to crises.

Based on Ardent’s bungled responses in the days after four people were tragically killed at Dreamworld, it appears Ardent was seriously unprepared.

Immediately after the accident Dreamworld’s CEO Craig Davidson followed accepted crisis protocol by expressing his shock and sadness, and concern for the families involved and their loved ones.

But since then Ardent’s crisis management , led by group CEO Deborah Thomas, has been on the back foot. They appear stunned and shocked that a fun park could be the scene for such a tragic and horrible event.

Two days after the accident Ardent’s AGM was scheduled to be held in Sydney. This was always going to be a media circus, but the timing was out of Ardent’s hands given the strict legal requirements governing ASX listed companies.

But at that meeting it was a monumental mistake to proceed with a resolution to approve a $860,000 bonus for the CEO. That’s right – two days after four customers were killed on her watch, the CEO was in line to receive a performance bonus.

Ardent tried to explain the $860,000 bonus related to long-term performance rights, but this detail was lost on the public who were thinking about four tragic deaths on a ride many of them have ridden on.

The optics of this was disastrous for Dreamworld and Ardent, and the media rightly jumped all over it. It was an unnecessary diversion that could have been avoided. This resolution could have been postponed by the Chairman, Neil Balnaves. Not to do was just dumb, naïve and insensitive.

It got worse. During the post AGM press conference the CEO looked very unconvincing when she was quizzed about why the company had not contacted the family of one of the victims.

This was after one of the parents texted a reporter at the presser, saying she was upset about not having been contacted. In fairness to Ardent they did the right thing by going through the police liaison officers rather than contacting the relatives directly. But it was not a good look on the six o’clock news that night.

The second big mistake by Ardent was its announcement that Dreamworld would reopen for a memorial day three days after the accident. This was way too soon. The funerals of the dead victims had not even occurred.

To make matters worse, Ardent did not consult the Queensland police before making this announcement. The police said the theme park was still a crime scene and would have to stay closed. Embarrassingly, Ardent had to cancel its planned memorial plan on the same day, and confirmed the park would remain closed indefinitely.

This was another basic crisis management error by Ardent. Crisis Management 101 decrees that police/emergency services are in charge of managing crime scenes involving deaths.

To cap it off, over the weekend it emerged in the media that Ardent and its PR agency are at loggerheads over the most appropriate way to manage the crisis. It’s extraordinary for a PR agency to back against its client.

Collectively, these mis-steps reinforce the perception that Ardent is not in charge of the management of a major crisis which wiped off 22% off its share price in 24 hours.

Ardent’s responses to date should be a reminder to CEOs of the need to develop robust crisis plans – and stress test them regularly.

By doing so you may realise that some of the situations are preventable by simply modifying existing methods of operation.

Or you can begin to think about possible responses and best-case/worst-case scenarios. Far better to do it now than when the proverbial hits the fan.

November 2 Poscript: In a front-page story in today’s Australian Financial Review headlined “We blew it”, CEO Deborah Thomas, conceded the company botched their response to the tragedy.

“If, heaven forbid, we ever had to do this again, the decisions we made would be very different.” she said.

Amen to that.

PR Crisis Advice and Management

Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:39:46 GMT

This is a subtitle for your new post

During my 35+ years in the PR/communications industry I’ve had the occasional client who has ignored my sage counsel during a crisis. It happens. It’s a free country, and they’re paying the bill. You move on and hope it works out for the client.

Which is why this week I felt for the PR advisers to Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, as they made their high profile and rather messy “stepping back” from royal duties announcement.

Stepping Back Harry and Meghans Bombshell Announcement

Sara Latham, a respected PR veteran who worked for Bill Clinton in the White House, joined the Sussexes last March to head up their personal in-house comms team.

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Hired Hillary Clinton's Former Campaign Advisor

In their desire to “carve out a progressive new role” within the royal family and becoming more “financially independent” they would have received plenty of expert PR counsel from her on how to announce and position their new charity, Sussex Royal.

Official Website of the Duke & Dutchess of Sussex

But based on this week’s events it’s clear they have either ignored her advice, or received some very bad counsel. I’m betting it’s the former. And it’s probably not the first time they’ve done it.

As the Queen and other members of ‘The Firm’ have discovered, Harry and Meghan are the ultimate PR nightmare – they hire experienced advisers only to ignore or go against their advice.

The ‘Megxit’ announcement comes after a very ordinary 12 months on the PR front for Harry and Meghan following their fairy-tale wedding in 2018, and birth of their son.

Both are enthusiastic advocates of climate change. In 2019 Harry spruiked his credentials at a Google climate change summit. Standing barefoot on a beach, Harry announced he and Meghan would only be having two kids to reduce their environmental footprint. This was seen by royal-watchers as a sleight against his brother (and future king) William, who has three kids. Very woke, but not very smart.

Their climate change cred was severely dented when the British press revealed Harry and Meghan flew to Europe on private Gulfstream jets four times in 11 days, staying at Sir Elton John’s palatial pile. Harry also flew by private helicopter from London to launch his sustainable travel project venture.

High profile TV host Piers Morgan slammed them on his Good Morning Britain TV show, declaring: “Nobody wants to hate these two. But they are making themselves look like rank hypocrites and you can't as a Royal do that.”

Piers Morgan Slams Prince Harry as “hypocrite” Over Private Jet Use

Demonstrating his lack of appreciation for PR optics, Harry protested he flies commercial “99 per cent of the time.”

As 2019 progressed, things went from bad to worse on the PR front. Sitting in the royal box at Wimbledon, Meghan complained about tennis fans taking photos of her. In October the couple agreed to film a documentary while on tour in Africa with a “friendly” TV host. In the programme the couple told of their ‘struggles’ about being in the media spotlight, complained about negative media coverage and attacked the tabloid press for conducting a “ruthless campaign” against Meghan.

This from a privileged couple who spent $2.9 million of taxpayers’ money renovating their home at Frogmore Cottage, including installing two orangeries in a yoga studio.

The couple later announced they were suing the Daily Mail over publication of a private letter. Going to war against the UK tabloids will not end well.

By this stage their PR adviser, Sara Latham, must have been wondering why she left her old job.

2020 is shaping up as a continuation of the PR nightmare for the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William as they try to protect the royal brand whilst being publicly accommodating to the wayward Sussexes.

Things have not started well. Harry and Meghan reportedly did not consult the Queen before making their “we’re stepping back” announcement, and splitting their time between the UK and Canada. The Queen was blindsided and was said to be "sad". Prince Charles, the future king, was said to be "furious."

‘Queen sad, Charles furious’: Britain’s media reacts to Megxit

If this was a deliberate ploy, it’s hard to fathom. But, it’s more likely the Sussexes ignored their comms director's advice once again. For their sake, I hope they start listening. Otherwise, it's going to be a long 2020 for Sara Latham.

Patrick Southam is a former journalist and co-founder and Partner at Reputation Edge, a Sydney based full service corporate communications consultancy.

PR & Reputation Solutions for Politicians

Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:17:26 GMT

By Mark Gell, Partner, Reputation Edge.

Interesting view towards establishing a Federal ICAC being expressed by federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten today. He believes that a Federal ICAC would help fix the image of politicians and help rid the public perception that they are only in it for themselves.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The more that a Federal ICAC reveals, the less trust the public will have in our public institutions, including our parliamentarians.

The real reason a Federal ICAC should be established is not to stop the petty rorts that politicians avail themselves, but rather to unearth deep corruption in public institutions and the parliamentary process.

The petty rorts will always continue as public figures can’t help themselves.

So yes bring on a Federal ICAC.

PR Crisis Management Strategy for Rugby Australia

Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:00:07 GMT

By Patrick Southam, Partner, Reputation Edge. As published in Mumbrella , 19 April 2018.

The current standoff between Rugby Australia, its superstar player Israel Folau and Qantas over Folau’s views on homosexuality poses a fascinating PR and moral dilemma: should an organisation try to gag the private views of an employee on contentious issues if they undermine a commercial relationship?

A devout Christian, Folau was castigated for a post on Instagram recently in which he said gay people would go to “HELL unless they repent of their sins and turn to God”. It was in response to a question about “God’s plan for gay people.”

The Wallaby player has previously spoken out against same-sex after the Wallabies publicly expressed support for the ‘Yes’ campaign last year. In a tweet , posted last September during the postal plebiscite, Folau said: “I love and respect all people for who they are and their opinions but personally, I will not support gay marriage.” A social media backlash ensued with accusations of homophobia against the player.

Folau’s latest comments on gays were too much for Alan Joyce, CEO of Qantas, the Wallabies’ major sponsor. An openly gay man, Joyce was a high-profile campaigner for same-sex marriage and donated $1 million of his own money to support the cause. Media reports suggested Qantas would pull its sponsorship if further “homophobic statements” were made by Folau or other players.

But Folau, the highest paid and highest profile Wallaby, has definitely stood his ground. Writing in Players’ Voice , Folau said he was prepared to walk away from rugby if he felt his Christian beliefs were harming the game.

The prospect of Folau, who is off contract at the end of this year, returning to rugby league or playing rugby overseas, would have been a PR disaster, and Rugby Australia CEO Raelene Castle wisely backed off after a “discussion” with the player.

Late on Wednesday night Castle issued a memo to rugby players reminding them of their obligation to use social media in a “respectful way”.

So, what are we to make of the ensuing furore over a seemingly innocuous Instagram post by a high profile Wallaby player? There’s no doubt that over the past week Rugby Australia and its new CEO have had to navigate a tricky PR minefield . It’s had to placate a very grumpy major sponsor in Qantas which endorses “tolerance and inclusion” as part of its corporate ethos.

On the other hand, its marquee player is a decent man who feels badly let down that his right to express his Christian beliefs in a free society is being maligned by his employer based on commercial considerations. But I can’t help but feel that Rugby Australia’s handling of Folau has created a rod for its own back. They’ve inadvertently stepped into the “free speech” battleground. This is a highly contested and confused space replete with starkly opposing views on what constitutes free speech, “hate speech” and the right to offend or insult.

In my opinion Rugby Australia would have been better to play a straight bat by saying Folau is entitled to express his opinion and let him be judged accordingly. End of story. Instead, Rugby Australia have tied themselves up in knots with politically correct corporate speak about “inclusion”, “values” and “respect”. Folau has copped plenty of online criticism in the past week, some of which Christians like him would probably regard as highly offensive and derogatory of their religion. But that’s the thing about free speech: it cuts both ways. Federal Liberal MP Tim Wilson, a gay former Human Rights Commissioner, made the point this week that free speech is only free speech if people on both sides of an opinion are able to express their point of view free of vilification.

He has a point.

Ironically, the over the top reaction from Qantas to Folau’s Instagram post has put the spotlight on its long-standing relationship with its commercial partner, Emirates. Supporters of Folau have seized on the fact Emirates is based in the United Arab Emirates where LGBTQI people have no rights, and homosexuality is punishable by death.

Qantas wants to sell its catering arm to Emirates. The word “hypocrisy” is being freely used online. As one letter writer to The Australian asked this week: “How, then, is Qantas able to continue its partnership with Emirates, given the Islamic injunctions against homosexuality in the United Arab Emirates?” By trying to gag Israel Folau, Rugby Australia and Qantas have over-reached. They’ve turned a minor PR issue into a full-on debate about employees’ rights to free speech and religious beliefs in the workplace.

It’s a debate definitely worth having, but I’m betting it’s one Raelene Castle didn’t really want to have.

PR Crisis Management Strategy for Cricket Australia

Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:02:34 GMT

By Patrick Southam, Partner, Reputation Edge.

The unedifying ball-tampering crisis engulfing the Australian cricket team and its captain Steve Smith has placed the spotlight squarely on the response by the sport’s governing body, Cricket Australia.

How an organisation responds to a high-profile crisis often says more about its real values than any slick ad campaign could ever hope to communicate.

But the early signs are not good judging by the initial response from long-serving Cricket Australia CEO, James Sutherland.

At a media conference on Sunday morning in Melbourne, a visibly shocked Sutherland initially refused to say whether Steve Smith would be sacked as captain. He also declined to call the ball-tampering “cheating” and studiously avoided using the word even though the evidence was in.

Sutherland told the media Smith would continue to captain the Australian team while an “integrity investigation” was conducted into the ball-tampering incident. “We need to understand the facts before we take action,” he said.

But only a few hours earlier in South Africa Steve Smith and Cameron Bancroft had actually admitted to ball-tampering during an after-match media conference. They could hardly have done otherwise. It was seen live on TV during the third test and subsequently broadcast around the world. Even our Prime Minister weighed in, slamming the team for “cheating”.

Incredulous reporters covering Sutherland’s presser could be heard asking him what further evidence he needed to stand Smith down as captain.

This clearly didn’t pass the pub test, and Cricket Australia issued a statement late on Sunday announcing that Smith and Dave Warner had agreed to stand down as captain and vice-captain respectively for the remainder of the game.

Sutherland and Cricket Australia failed at the first hurdle in their response to a developing crisis, and it doesn’t augur well as the crisis unfolds in the days and weeks ahead.

So, how should Cricket Australia respond to the worst captaincy crisis since 1981 when skipper Greg Chappell instructed his brother Trevor to bowl underarm with the last ball in a match against New Zealand to secure a victory?

With fans and former players across the world branding the Australians as cheats, Cricket Australia must take firm and decisive action now to cauterise this crisis and begin rebuilding the reputation of the team. These are my suggested responses:

Steve Smith’s position is untenable and Cricket Australia should terminate his contract immediately. This can be achieved by triggering the clause in his contract covering player behaviour. By his actions, Smith has unquestionably brought the game into disrepute and damaged Cricket Australia’s reputation with fans and sponsors. Smith can still ply his trade in the Indian Premier League.
Steve Smith has admitted some members of his “leadership group” were aware of his decision to cheat by tampering with the ball. This includes vice-captain David Warner. He should receive a minimum 12-month ban from representing Australia in all forms of cricket.
Cameron Bancroft, who did the illegal tampering under the glare of live TV cameras, should also be banned for 12 months.
To date, there has been a deafening silence on this crisis from the team coach, Darren Lehmann. His win-at-all-costs attitude has been blamed for a poor culture in the team. There is media speculation he is aware of the cheating ploy. If this was the case he should be sacked immediately.

Crises demand leadership from the top, and outraged Australian cricket fans are demanding some decisive action from Cricket Australia sooner rather than later.

Jaimie Fuller. The Executive Chairman of compression wear company Skins hit the nail on the head in a full-page open letter to Cricket Australia in the Sydney Morning Herald. He wrote in part:

“You need to tell us who’s behind this, who came up with the idea, who agreed to it, who knew about it. Not in one month or so, but in the next few days.

“And you should worry less about whether we will win this or the next Test, and more about the reputation of your governance and leadership of the game, the reputation of the game so many of us love, and the reputation of Australia.”

The fourth and final test of this acrimonious series is due to begin in South Africa on Friday. As it is, this game will be a humiliating farce for the Australian team.

Before then Cricket Australia needs to demonstrate some real leadership by announcing a satisfactory response to this unseemly crisis.

Giving Your Brand Reputation an Edge

Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:06:20 GMT

By Mark Gell, Partner, Reputation Edge.

People tend to focus on reputation when things go bad rather than considering why your reputation matters when things are good.

Research has proven that customers like to buy from companies that have a good reputation. Companies with a good reputation can charge more for their products and services and customers will also buy a greater range of goods. They also command a higher value for their company when that company is sold.

If this is the case then why do people have reputation management as an after thought?

Why do management wait until the proverbial hits the wall before calling in the cleaners to try and fix what has been broken?

Building a reputation takes time and it can be broken with one incident. Reputation management touches every part of an organisation and all its stakeholders. One point of weakness can open a wound across the whole organisation which in some instances can become critical and cause major value damage to the organisation, make customers and suppliers turn away and investors hesitant about investing.

Doing an assessment of a company’s reputation and defining where a company is vulnerable is key to developing a sound reputation management plan.

Elements of that plan include an assessment of where the company is meeting its promise and where it isn’t meeting that promise across all its operations. Ultimately, a company’s reputation is its word, which becomes its story. After all, people don’t buy products or services they buy the story behind the products and services.

Positioning Results and Brand Reputation

Mon, 05 Feb 2018 14:07:58 GMT

By Mark Gell, Partner, Reputation Edge.

All to often we read stories of companies that publish overly positive projections. Or, they fail to inform the market of the negatives that can impact their earnings. We understand the urge to paint the brightest picture but at what cost?

Companies need to be smart about the way they position the market. Just today Get Swift has been highlighted in the media for being “too fast for its own good”. There is a huge temptation when a company is on an aggressive growth path to “push” the story hard. But this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy of failure if it can’t be delivered.

The markets are looking for companies that deliver on what they say they will deliver – and do it consistently over time. It is from this foundation that companies can build a strong PE ratio, not by promising to deliver big numbers.

This is where positioning results is extremely important. Always leave the upside, don’t sell it.

Reputation Edge are experts in positioning results with partners managing difficult results for companies for almost 30 years. It is our stock in trade.

PR for Politicians: The Trump Phenomenon

Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:12:21 GMT

By Mark Gell, Partner, Reputation Edge.

People either love or hate Donald Trump. But all are confused as to how he still garners support. The political elite and the mainstream media have been throwing everything they can at his administration. But when you see former Democrats voting Republican and saying that Donald is doing a good job something is going on.

For too long in America, there has been ruled by a political class. The Bush family was part of this class as was Obama. But they failed to deliver to the broad American community. There were so many people impacted by the financial meltdown of 2008 and yet there was not a clean out of Wall Street.

Obama famously coined the phrase “yes we can” but in the end he failed to deliver, and speak to, the average American. Much of what Donald has pledged to do can be traced back to what Bush and Obama also pledged to do. Yet he is being vilified by the mainstream media for even suggesting he is going to undertake certain reforms.

Instead, Donald introduced massive tax cuts and the average American voter is lapping it up. They love it!!

Why? Because it speaks to the “Silent Majority”. It breaks with tradition. It is a bold move that is perceived as getting government off peoples back.

Whether it translates into votes is a different matter.

Watch this focus group of Democrat voters – it is very enlightening.

Reputation Strategy for CBA

Mon, 29 Jan 2018 14:28:05 GMT

By Mark Gell, Partner, Reputation Edge.

The CBA has its fair share of reputation issues over the last few years and no doubt there were those that were looking and hoping that the Board would select some outside new blood to take a fresh broom approach to the bank.

So the choice of an insider and who was head of the retail bank is curious and no doubt has a lot of inherent risks associated with the decision. If Comyn does not perform there will be a very heavy spotlight on the Board. If another reputation based issue raises its head, commentators will say his appointment was a failure despite the fact he may have nothing to do with the source of the issue.

It is also curious that the Board was unable to find someone of the calibre needed from outside the bank to become CEO. Does this mean that potential high calibre external CEO candidates thought that the job was too hot to handle. Food for thought.

Time will tell as to the success or otherwise of the Board decision to appoint from within. Ultimately, if it doesn’t work out there will be some very hard questions for the Board to answer.

GO HARD, GO HOME

Investment Innovations for Sydney Agriculture

By Jon Sweet, Reputation Edge.

The Water Challenge

Aging Farmers and Diversity

﻿

Innovation, Investment and Government Spending

﻿

Navigating keyboard warrior voyeurism and its impact on leadership

What’s the Difference Between PR and Marketing?

“Publicity is absolutely critical. A good PR story is infinitely more effective than a front-page ad." Richard Branson.

Top 5 PR Trends to Watch in 2021

By Jonathan Sweet, Partner

Making it Personal

Influencers and Message Consistency

Online Events: Pre-Record But Get it Right

Managing a Crisis

Creativity is Still King

Reputation Solutions and Crisis in PR Tips

Tip of the Month: During a Crisis Reflect Before you Respond

By Mark Gell – Director and Co-Founder

Step One: Get the Facts – What Happened?

Step Two: Reflect Before you Respond

Step Three: Less is More

Volvo Leadership Profile

What keeps CEOs awake at night?

The Edge Digital Agency Studio

Introducing “The Edge” Broadcast Studio

By Mark Gell – Director and Cofounder

﻿

Hosting Live Webinars

Media Training

Presentation Training

Results Presentations

Internal Messages

Live to Air Forums and Discussions

Pandemic Communication Strategy for Businesses

Managing Proactive Media Relations in a Pandemic

By Patrick Southam, Partner and Co-founder

﻿

Personalise your Pitch

Be Relevant and Interesting

Do your Homework

When to Pitch?

Non-COVID Pitching Etiquette

How to Handle Investor Relations During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Investor Relations Teams Must Keep the Faith in 2021

Investor Relations for Banks

By Patrick Southam, Partner, Reputation Edge.

Ways to Improve Brand Reputation

By Jon Sweet, Reputation Edge.

The Dreamworld PR Crisis Management

PR Crisis Advice and Management

This is a subtitle for your new post

PR & Reputation Solutions for Politicians

PR Crisis Management Strategy for Rugby Australia

PR Crisis Management Strategy for Cricket Australia

Giving Your Brand Reputation an Edge

Positioning Results and Brand Reputation

PR for Politicians: The Trump Phenomenon

Reputation Strategy for CBA