Inside the world of Rob Mclean, Author

At first I thought this was a great story about a selfless boss who fired herself instead of her employees.  And I guess it still kind of is. But I realized, wait a second, how is that any different than tons of CEO's who have taken one-dollar-a-year in salary during this recession? I don't know why she wouldn't do that - allowing her skill set to still be of benefit to the organization. I suspect there's more to this story about why she quit than CNN articulates in their coverage (nothing bad per se, but something else that wasn't covered in the story).  I know average folks watching television don't think about this stuff, but PR folks see a story like this and start thinking 'How did this make it in to the media? Who pitched it? What's the back story?'

So I talk a lot about reputation management, because,well, it matters. When you have a strong, trusted reputation - one in which people believe in - it's tantamount to driving down a desolate highway (essentially, no one gets in your way and you can accomplish things you want with minimal resistance). It strikes me that we are witnessing the beginning of this with WikiLeaks. Yes the government communications were interesting, but that was only the beginning of WikiLeaks beginning its path towards building a reputation as defender of the public trust. Let's be honest, the public is split 50/50 on whether WikiLeaks is a good thing (actually probably more like 70 per cent who are not in favor of WikiLeaks) - many feel it should not be allowed to reveal confidential information.  Many don't see it as a 'defender of public trust' and in fact see it as a rogue, irresponsible outlet for publishing information that should not be made public. But I have a feeling that

If you haven't seen, WikiLeaks is back in the news . I was blown away by how many comments were left on the CBC story - over 750 (the most I've ever seen on a story).  You can view the leaked government documents yourself at WikiLeaks.org From a PR perspective this continues to emphasize just how important reputation management is. Realistically, there is no 'damage control' you can put on something like this. At best, and I suspect this is what will happen, the government can admonish those who leaked the communications and try to make the story less about what was in the communications and more about the need for increased security and limitations on internet media. When you can't control a situation though (as is the case here) the only armor you have to protect yourself with is your reputation. We've seen a variety of situations wherein negative publicity impacts the organization or person differently based on their existing reputation. BP (oil s

The Holmes Report has come out with Global Rankings of PR agencies worldwide and estimates that revenues in 2010 shrank eight per cent. It's no surprise really, what hasn't shrunk in the past year? What I found interesting was that in every part of the world economic conditions topped the list of concerns for PR folks. Except in Europe, where talent was the top concern most PR agencies had. I suspect a big part of the drop is simply due to turmoil within many organizations. After two full years of budget cuts and staff reductions, those employees left standing are focused primarily on keeping the boat afloat (and a lot of them are tired and slightly burned out).  Pushing for increased spend is not going to be top of their priority list. It's too bad really, because as I've said many times, I think PR is more important during a recession than during boom cycles - not just to organizations themselves, but to the economy as a whole. The tougher the B2B and B2C env

Alberta Health Services' CEO, Stephen Duckett, made a bit of a slip up with the media recently . Instead of saying 'no comment' he chose a more colorful response of 'I'm eating a cookie." He's catching a lot of flack for the response. I think part of the problem in situations like this is that we've crammed it in to spokespersons heads that you never ever say 'no comment'. So when they find themselves in a situation where 'no comment' is actually appropriate - like this one for instance where media questions were to be fielded at a specific time - they don't know what to say. Really his response should have been 'I'll take all your questions in 30 minutes at the media Q&A sess6ion." This to me is the fault of the PR profession. I'm not saying the folks who work for Duckett, I'm talking the industry as a whole. We tend to make the media an 'entity' and set out all these 'guidelines' f

One day after a "shellacking" in the congressional election, President Obama acknowledged Wednesday that he needs to improve his relations with business. "As I reflect on what's happened over the last two years, it's one of the things that I think has not been managed by me as well as it needed to be." Read the story here . It's mind-boggling that he's saying things like this. Who is managing his PR strategy at this point? Anyone? All that matters right now - or for the past two years really - is jobs. So the last thing Obama should be saying is that the one thing he didn't manage well was the very thing that creates jobs, that being the business community. But it runs deeper than that - Obama's flaw was treating all business as one amorphous entity and having a one-dimensional messaging strategy as it relates to business. The reality is that some businesses are good, some are bad and others are neither here nor there. What O

Fascinating story about a doctor who dealt with a spinal injury and how that changed his view on health care. One of the things that is rarely talked about in PR, yet which is so essential, is the degree to which executive management truly understands the business they are running. This ties back to the book Good to Great , and also ties in to vision and mission statements. When executives and personnel are personally connected to their business - when they eat, breath and sleep the organization's mandate - PR is typically very easy as there will be a myriad of activities, projects and spokespersons for PR folks to mine to tell the organization's story. However, when an organization is disjointed or silo'd, when people are merely clocking in and clocking out, the task for a PR person becomes extremely difficult because there is no over-arching 'spirit' or vision that underpins all activities. As a result, various aspects of an organization end up standing

Is the recession over? Well, not according to a recent report that shows that use of food banks is way up. Almost a million Canadians... or roughly three per cent of the population, used food banks in March 2010. This story is a good example of how PR shapes our view of our world. Recently stories over the recession ending, the end of the government's stimulus spending and increases in home prices would all suggest that things are on the mend and looking good. Yet obviously they aren't, at least not for everyone. PR gives a voice to trends that are unfolding in our society, and if certain elements don't have a voice, we often can end up getting the wrong picture about what is going on out there. This particular story has definitely shaded my view of the recovery.

So if you thought cigarette warning labels were graphic in Canada, wait until you see the new US labels on their way according to the following story in the New York Times. I'd also suggest reading the story that ran in the Globe and Mail to get a Canadian perspective. Basically bigger (covering half the pack), more 'scary' pictures. The strategy is obvious.... do everything in their power to scare the heck out of people from even touching a pack of cigarettes. Kind of reminds me of someone I knew who tried to quit using hypnosis. Basically they hypnotize you in to thinking that the cigarette is actually a piece of feces. Then when you later go have a smoke you don't want to touch it, much less put it to your mouth. The bigger and scarier the warning labels, the more an almost air of hypocrisy emerges. If cigarettes are this deadly, then why are they allowed to be sold everywhere in the world? (the answer obviously being the market demand is so high it's ne

If you find yourself working in a corporation you'll know that the vision and mission statements are probably two of the most important things you will be tasked with. They basically summarize, often in one sentence to a short paragraph, what the company stands for. It's an articulation of its DNA - we are W and X, Y, and Z is what we get up every day and commit ourselves to achieving. Yet, these statements often are pie-in-the-sky statements made to create the impression that the company has laser focus. You'll never see a company's vision and mission statement say "Our mission is to create a product that is good enough that we land a few customers and can then get acquired by a larger player in the market and walk away with millions." Even though for a lot of businesses that is their vision and mission (and there's nothing wrong with that, small-cap innovation is essential to developing new products, and larger companies acquiring smaller companies

Now here's a story that we'd probably never even have heard about if the folks at the University of Chicago hadn't created a video. The reality is that trying to communicate this story using just a press release would be difficult. It could be done, but the media would have a hard time understanding why 'fingerless' gripper mattered or why it was a story. But toss in a video, just a very basic, no-frills video demonstrating the product, and suddenly people become fascinated. In addition, more outlets are running videos in conjunction with their stories as a way of increasing ad revenue. The video link above is to YouTube (because I can embed YouTube in blogger), but if you were to view it on CBC's Web-site you'd notice a short advertisement before the video started. PR folks need to start seeing video as not a special 'one-off' element of their job, but rather, a tactic that they utilize regularly. I can envision in just a few years every n

A story recently highlighted that Health Canada has no plans to update the warning labels on cigarettes, a move which has upset the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The debate over warning labels seems more like a PR issue and a question of whether warning labels actually get people to quit smoking. From my time as a smoker, and the hundreds of smokers I've met along the way, I've never once met anyone who said they quit smoking because they finally realized via the warning labels that cigarettes were bad for them. Anyone who smokes knows they are bad. The reasons for quitting seem to almost always be the result of either a health scare of some sort, general declining health, the desire to set a good example for their kids by quitting, pressure from family members or simply getting tired of being addicted to something. Often times it's a combination of these variables. But like I say, I've never seen anyone quit as a result of the warning labels. I suppose

A new study has shown that alcohol is the most harmful drug in society - primarily as a result of the harm use can have on others versus simply on the individual themselves. It fascinates me to see the debate on the harms associated with various substance uses because it seems almost like a contrived PR issue at times - sort of like the Republicans versus Democrats debate that never ends. I say this because it's comparing apples and oranges - or green apples and red apples at times. If alcohol causes the most harm and it's legal, then why not make all drugs legal some might say. Obviously that doesn't make sense because if you were to make cocaine legal for instance the harms associated with its use in society would likely rise dramatically as rates of use would increase as a result of its legal status. Also, a drug is not just a drug. Drinking one beer with supper is different than binge drinking and driving while under the influence. So you can't even compare al

Kudos to CJOH for their special on Addictions - Everyday Addicts . It really gives you a good glimpse in to the various elements surrounding addiction and that this is one of the major issues facing Canadian society in terms of law enforcement costs and overall standard of health among Canadians in general. Good to see the issue being talked about in more than a 30-second news clip on the crack down of a grow-op or the needless death of someone as a result of an overdose.

Interesting article and video on a prediction that the DOW will reach 38,000 by the year 2025. While it may sound wildly absurd right now, you have to remember that we're talking 24 years away! And based on the DOW today (11,170), we're only talking roughly a 400 per cent increase (invest a dollar today and in 2025 it will be worth 4 dollars - but actually you'll get a lot more). You have to remember that gains don't come all at once, they compound - that 400 per cent accrues over 24 years. So you invest a dollar today, then in eight years it's worth two dollars. In another eight years it's worth 4 dollars and in another eight years it's worth 8 dollars - which is actually a 800 per cent return, not a 400 per cent return (even though the markets themselves would have risen 400 per cent). Despite the disaster we've lived through since 2008, the market is still the best place to be long term.  To put it in perspective, if you invested 10,000 this yea