Massy-Forget Relations Publiques - Massy-Forget Public Relations

Une p�riode d'incubation tr�s douloureuse...

Annie Langlois — 2008-08-26 09:52:45

Quand nous �tions enfants, ma s�ur et moi adorions manger les saucisses � hot dog crues ! Ma m�re ne s'y opposait pas, ne connaissant pas � l'�poque (la fin des ann�es 60) le risque que l'on courrait � consommer ainsi ce produit � l'�tat cru. Heureusement, nous n'avons jamais �t� malades, pas m�me une petite � gastro �. L'Agence de sant� publique du Canada se veut rassurante et informe la population que le risque associ� � la bact�rie listeria est faible pour la plupart d'entre nous. C'est que nous devions �tre en bonne sant� alors, ou bien la chance �tait avec nous...Ce n'est malheureusement pas le cas des 26 victimes canadiennes confirm�es. Le bilan est lourd : de ce nombre, douze personnes d�c�d�es � ce jour. La cause : une �closion de list�riose. On ne sait toujours pas d'o� vient la source exacte de cette contamination, du c�t� des Aliments Maple Leaf et de l'Agence canadienne d'inspection des aliments, on cherche tous les indices qui m�neront � mieux d�finir l'origine de ce myst�re.

Cons�quence incontournable, un rappel de 220 produits, entra�nant des pertes �valu�es � 20 millions de dollars et ce n'est pas termin�... Comme la p�riode d'incubation de la list�ria est longue, de nouveaux cas s'ajouteront � la liste d'ici les prochaines semaines. Aussi, il y aura d'autres sous-marques qui seront touch�es par ce rappel gigantesque, l'un des plus importants dans le genre de toute l'histoire canadienne, rapporte-t-on dans tous les journaux ce matin. Et le tout aura �videmment des impacts majeurs sur la grande marque Maple Leaf. Comme les consommateurs sont tourn�s vers d'autres produits semblables, ceux des concurrents, Maple Leaf aura du pain sur la planche pour regagner la confiance des consommateurs et les ramener vers sa marque, une fois son usine rouverte et ses activit�s reprises...� suivre.

Travailler la terre

Johanna Raynaud — 2008-08-26 09:51:07

Notre r�putation dans le milieu de l'alimentation n'est plus � faire et j'ai une chance infinie de pouvoir travailler sur de si beaux projets. Gr�ce � notre passion et � notre travail, nous avons de plus en plus de f�d�rations de producteurs qui souhaitent profiter de nos service. Nous nous faisons un plaisir (je me fais un plaisir) de d�velopper de beaux projets pour encourager la consommation de produits qu�b�cois en cr�ant des strat�gies de communication et de promotions.

Travailler la terre, travailler avec les ressources naturelles est difficile. Nos artisans qu�b�cois sont des passionn�s qui d�vouent toute leurs vies � ces produits / aliments.
J'avoue �prouver de la fiert� � travailler pour des gens int�gres, des fervents de la terre. J'aimerais d'ailleurs moi-m�me pouvoir patauger dans la bouette un peu plus souvent, visiter des fermes, des plantations ou des bateaux de p�cheurs.

En l'espace de quelques mois, nous avons particip� au lancement de la campagne pour le Homard du Qu�bec, � la campagne du ministre Lessard � Mettez le Qu�bec dans votre assiette �, au lancement de la saison du bleuet sauvage du Qu�bec, etc.

En partageant mes journ�es avec ces gens engag�s, il me semble que nous nous rendons utiles puisque nous encourageons l'emploi, les agriculteurs, les r�gions qui ne vivent parfois que d'une industrie limit�e (Gasp�sie et �les de la Madeleine).

Certains jours, nous cherchons une motivation pour venir travailler et remettons en question notre utilit� dans la soci�t� mais d'autres jours, un simple mot, un remerciement fait la diff�rence et nous permet de mieux finir la journ�e avec un peu de baume au c�ur.
Finalement, le monde des communications � beau �tre dur et sans piti�, il est parfois utile � la survie des autres.

Using social media to effect BIG change

Leslie Quinton — 2008-08-26 09:48:27

As a communications firm, we've been involved for the past four or five years or so in varying degrees of social outreach and public relations with stakeholders through the internet. Its diverse tools and forums allow for product testing, consumer feedback, social activism, corporate feedback, and many other ways of talking about issues, products and projects.

We're always keen to find new and interesting ways to use this medium but I was a little taken aback when I read the story about United Airlines' pilots and their creation of a website to force their CEO, Glenn Tilton, to resign.

Their reasoning for creating the site: to put pressure on their Chief Executive Office to leave his post, essentially for what they perceive as bad administration. Specifically, they are unhappy with how Glenn Tilton's "management has increased fares, raised fees, and increased restrictions to customers, even as they cut services, and treat us, your pilots, with utter disregard for the sacrifices we have made over the years". In other words, highly disgruntled employees fearing that their boss' supposed incompetence is ruining their company (and endangering their jobs). Speaking out about your on-the-job dissatisfaction has never been so vocal.

In the "olden days", how do you suppose a group of unhappy employees would have reacted to the idea that their boss was incompetent? First of all, it's unlikely that without the internet, people would know as much as they do about a senior executive's decision-making and administrative style: the web and online technology permits a peek behind the curtain that goes far beyond what used to be available through paper trails and even the best word of mouth network.

But the registration of their CEO's name as a URL for the sole purpose of getting him fired seems to me at the very least unethical, if not outright illegal. When Bill Clinton was President of the United States, he passed a bill called the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. It effectively prevented registration of trademarks, including website addresses, "identifying any particular living individual, except with the consent of that person".

Some of the first to take advantage of this Act were celebrities like Tom Cruise and Madonna, both of whom had their names registered as domain names without their permission, no doubt with the intent to extort money from them later by some quick-thinking online adepts long ago in the days where people weren't thinking about URLs yet.

I support the pilots' desire to speak out against something they feel puts their livelihood in danger. But I think they could have picked another name (like say, www.EndGlenn.com) and avoided crossing the legal line. The lesson: register your own name now, if you suspect anyone may ever have something to hold against you.

Why not to work in advertising

Leslie Quinton — 2008-07-23 10:17:03

I've long been a lukewarm fan of Al and Laura Ries' The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR, the tome published in 2002 for PR-protagonists that argues that PR is both more effective and more useful than advertising, except in certain specific cases. For example, the idea of gradually and repetitively exposing people to your messages, even if the means change, rings instinctively true to me as the best way to change behaviour and get your stakeholders to think differently.

Of course, there's lots to disagree with, too - I prefer the idea of combining the best of various methods of communication than simply and rather reductively saying that advertising = bad, PR = good. There are lots of times when advertising is more relevant: when the message is more about image, when there is extensive brand and identity building to be done, or when you deliberately want to reach a broad and not especially targeted audience. And there's nothing more effective than a multi-media PR/advertising one-two punch, in my mind.

And although I've worked in PR agencies, I know ad agencies, too. I've hired a number of them from my days as a communications director, where I juggled PR, marketing, advertising, sponsorship and anything else that could remotely be called communications. I even worked, sort of, within one by virtue of the structure of my previous job and have created numerous projects and plans that have been hand in hand with my advertising cousins.

But once in a while you read information, correct or not, that makes you cringe and think that you're grateful that you weren't led down the advertising path.

A recent survey of marketing and advertising executives reports that more than half of them have been "stabbed in the back" by colleagues at work. The Creative Group, a placement firm for marketing and advertising professionals, conducted this study to determine how often people believe that their colleagues (or former colleagues in some cases, I would imagine) had tried to make them look "bad on the job". 50% of respondents said that they had been betrayed by their teammates.

According to the online Wictionary, "backstabbing" means to attack someone (especially verbally - potentially the communicator's best weapon?) "unfairly in a deceitful, underhanded, or treacherous manner, especially when they're not present in the place or situation that it happens." I have witnessed this in other contexts, unfortunately, and it never ceases to surprise me, mainly because of the sheer amount of wasted effort and energy such actions seems to consume. And I hate to say it, but it doesn't surprise me that this kind of behaviour has been identified by those who work in advertising. But should I believe that underhandedness is especially the domain of those in advertising? Seems a bit broad, no?

By virtue of this survey, are the authors trying to tell us that advertising is more likely to experience backstabbing than other work environments? Of course, studies like this don't tell the whole picture: maybe 50% of all employees, no matter where they work, believe that they are being attacked behind their back and advertising is no nastier than say, flower-arranging.

But advertising executives (like lawyers and yes, PR professionals) are easy targets, usually being portrayed by popular media and Hollywood as heartless, egotistical and as trying to get people to believe whatever they say, whether it's true or not. If one assumed this gross generalization were true, then sure, it's easier to imagine that there's more backstabbing in this industry than elsewhere. The lesson, however, is to beware of surveys that ultimately don't tell us anything (maybe there are even more backstabbers in other professions, only no-one ever asked them!) and to tread warily around stereotypes.

How to be productive

Leslie Quinton — 2008-06-16 13:01:07

Being efficient and making the most of our time is paramount in agency life: not just because we are often paid fixed sums and need to be effective (i.e. to deliver) within the budget identified, but also because there are only so many hours in a day and to get everything done that needs to be done, you need to be on your game efficiency-wise.

This is an issue that has been piquing my interest more lately as we have begun to integrate new members onto our team who are unaccustomed to the pace of the agency environment. To my immense pleasure, they've all caught on. Success seems to come from a happy combination of understanding how to prioritize and having good communications reflexes, along with a healthy dose of quick action.

So I found it somewhat provocative (and couldn't help but wonder how it applied to us) when I read about a Microsoft survey that mentioned that employees feel they are only truly productive a little under half their time at work. The survey, which was published in 2005, was conducted by Microsoft of its own personnel, and the results of the over 38,000 employees are sometimes discouraging (particularly if you're a Microsoft customer!). Let's assume we can extrapolate some of their findings to the corporate world in general, and consider the following:

- People say they spend almost 6 hours a week in meetings: 69% say meetings are not productive
- Women say their workweek is more productive than men's (but not enormously so)
- The average American worker receives 56 emails a day
- The most common reasons cited for being unproductive globally are, in order: unclear objectives, lack of team communication, ineffective meetings, unclear priorities and procrastination

At the same time, I've been reading about a concept called ROWE for Results-Only Work Environment. The idea is essentially this, that success is measured by results rather than the time needed to complete the task. The concepts relies upon rewarding people for the great outcomes they deliver and puts less stock into how much time they take: it doesn't matter if they are quick or slow, as long as everything gets done and done well. I think intrinsically I am in favour of this idea and live it to an extent already. I don't really care about someone showing me how many long hours they put in if in the end, the results aren't there. It's all about delivering (see first paragraph) and if you can deliver quickly, so much the better since I'm sure we've got something else you can work on!

This might seem at odds with the classic agency approach in some ways, since the implicit expectation is that you need to put in a lot of hours to be effective. But true efficiency for me is putting in the hours that are required, whether it's two or twelve, in order to get the best results. You need to be accurate in terms of what time is going to be needed when you estimate the project to the client, of course, but I like very much the idea of upping efficiency while focusing on end results. And the good news is that companies like Best Buy who use ROWE have found that their turnover rate when down almost 90% and productivity went up 41%. And that's pretty impressive.