Why PR needs to take care with ChatGPT

How do I introduce another article about ChatGPT and not have you stop reading? Well, a smart Roman once said that Rome would be undone by its own folly and overindulgence. “The enemy is within the gates”, cried Cicero to his inattentive audience. Now, in harking back over 2000 years for my references, I appreciate that I’m reinforcing my luddite credentials when writing about the new bot on the block.

If you are one of those who stretched the holiday to the Australia Day ‘finishing line’ and missed the razzamatazz that greeted the arrival of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, let me explain. In summary, it’s a chatbot which demonstrates artificial intelligence (AI) at the level that’s exciting some of those with serious tech pedigree, including Elon Musk and Bill Gates. The latter has been so enamoured that Microsoft has just made a multibillion dollar investment in the business behind the bot - OpenAI. This is a piece of technology that does some impressive tricks; in geekspeak it’s what’s known as a large language model, so words are its thing – song lyrics, film scripts, essays. It has unnerved education authorities to the extent that Queensland and New South Wales have banned the bot from state schools. They are not alone; New York public schools had already implemented a similar ban.

So, what’s with the Romans and what does ChatGPT’s arrival mean for PR? Well, I mention Cicero as we, as a profession, should firstly, be mindful of how the technology is used and secondly, how those uses are interpreted by others. Despite the whiff of resistance to the writing, I do believe ChatGPT can, in principle, be a useful development for communicators. However, its introduction needs to be managed very carefully by practitioners and their governing bodies alike. Otherwise, that enemy will be firmly ensconced within our gates.

Quite simply, irrespective of the financial attraction of having robots do the work of people, the profession cannot afford to fully embrace the technology as here lies a path of diminishing returns. ChatGPT and other AI applications present an opportunity for the industry, but as a profession we need to be careful that this doesn’t only benefit the opportunists. I fully recognise that there are some aspects of our roles that could be automated such as the monitoring reports, but our adoption of the technology must be measured. The technocrats will talk in terms of technology’s inevitability and so we should steal a march on those other forces threatening the PR space, but ours is a people industry. Lest we forget the P in PR. Rest assured, I’m not returning to my luddite tendencies and bashing bots out of fear, but making a different point, which is that the indiscriminate implementation of ChatGPT and everything that follows will shape they way we are perceived by others, including clients. We can’t throw the baby out with the bot water, as it were. A move that puts technology before people will ensure that we produce tech-oriented outputs, which, unquestionably, will be tactical in nature. As I said, parts of the work we do – such as the monitoring – can be done by machine, but there’s a huge difference between monitoring, and analysing the contextual factors that underpin a client’s coverage, which is when we plainly need the people. It’s the people; our people, who produce the strategic magic. The ability to read the seemingly incongruous, from political debate, consumer behaviours, Hollywood reference points and changing norms to produce compelling strategy. It’s strategy that will ensure the industry’s long-term future, not tactics.

The mid-term economic forecast for agencies and in-house teams will continue to be challenging, but the allure of technology and its apparent promises need to be weighed against the potential cost of losing people and what they can do. Employment expert, Professor David Autor recently said that “AI will help [our] people use expertise better, meaning that we’ll specialize more.” The difficulty with that point is that specialisation takes time to accrue in the first place.

I urge us not to rush into the ChatGPT carnival, otherwise in returning to Cicero, “we may have  our own criminality to contend with”.

This article was first published by Mumbrella (www.mumbrella.com.au)

Put the face to the vaccine

The vaccines are coming. More precisely, Covid-19 vaccinations are already being administered in large parts of the world at varying speeds, while it will be March before the Australian Federal Government have their needles at the ready.

The exercise is a mammoth communications exercise, which is made harder by the determined levels of suspicion levelled at the idea of vaccinating. Way before Covid-19 became the viral poster child, the World Health Organisation listed vaccine hesitancy as one of the biggest threats to global health. The Covid conspiracy chorus, fed by a ragbag of intransigent celebrities has done nothing to soothe the situation. To that end, a recent survey by the Associated Press found that a quarter of US adults “weren’t sure” if they wanted to be vaccinated against Covid. Granted, the picture in Australia is far less recalcitrant, but the reality is there are people who have misgivings about vaccinating, whether that is borne of fear or ideology, which brings me to my argument.

It’s the people, stupid, or in campaign terms, it you want ‘em to vaccinate, tell ‘em about the people who made it. Scientific and medical breakthroughs have always been about the people, whether it’s Fleming and penicillin; Christiaan Barnard and his hearts, or Crick and Watson and DNA. As an audience, we can relate to these individual stories and so they become memorable. Their efforts talk to attributes which the rest of us crave – tenacity, wisdom, and inventiveness. We go as far as holding them up to our children as emblems of hard work and possibility – “look, what you can achieve if you try hard enough!”.

For communicators, their magic, quite simply, is they have a face. We can subsequently, personalise campaigns and with personalisation, comes greater trust. We can see the whites of their eyes and they look like you and me. Audiences tend to find it harder to distrust individuals, versus the organisations they work for.

Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Moderna and BioNTech are superbly effective businesses, who all do important work; in fact, they do very important work – their products can keep us alive - but the ‘body corporate ‘is deemed far less trustworthy than the individual men and women who run them. Case in point, Edelman’s widely reported Trust Barometer found that 50% of respondents in Australia questioned if “capitalism did more harm than good”. It is easier for audience members to feel empowered enough to condemn big (read profitable), faceless organisations; especially with names that would suggest they come from other planets. The fact that the vaccine breakthrough was engineered and managed by these institutions (together with Oxford University) is not contested but framing the story in corporate terms loses sight of those individual exertions and emotions we can all relate to at times of such challenges. And as any discerning communicator knows, if our audience can connect with our campaigns, their levels of engagement will be far more meaningful. Pharmaceuticals work furiously at an image of control and dispassionate efficiency, but in undermining any resistance to the vaccine, it’s a must that they get behind the polished livery and show us the blood, sweat and tears.

The staying together message will be needed more than ever when we get back to normal

“We’re in this together” quickly became the collective mantra in the face of the pandemic. From politicians, national broadcasters, and celebrities, the script remains the same.

This came as no surprise. At times of national-scale hemorrhaging, the messaging will always speak to solidarity and unity, whether it’s virus attacks, or terrorist attacks. It works, on the whole, despite the chorus of togetherness being occasionally undermined by a palatial backdrop enjoyed by said celebs.

The more intriguing question is when do we stop being in this together? The closer we edge to a sense of normality, many businesses will strain every sinew to revert to the individualism of old and return the spotlight onto personal indulgence, but it will be an ill-advised business that throws themselves too soon into such a position.

I strongly believe that the corporate messaging needs to continue to appeal to those consumer obligations, before the treats kick in. Which begs the question, what are these new obligations? We’ve readily obliged and stayed indoors and kept our distance, but now, more than ever, we need to be in this together to fix the country; the national economy has the frailty of a newborn foal.

The importance of consumer spending when it comes to the resuscitation process is not lost on me, but this is not an anti-spend message which I put forward, it is a stakeholder message. How so? Our messaging can help achieve growth in different ways. My argument is that a messaging strategy that taps into these inherent consumer obligations to re-build the nation will have far more reputational kudos for the businesses behind them, than one that points solely to the idea of individual needs.

Let’s make this a little more material – as an airline, hotelier, or cruise line operator – you can pitch the escapism line to your potential customers, or there is something more shared in purpose, which plays into a more collective responsibility and talks of the benefits personal travel and tourism plans have for others. The smart messaging will be mindful of the pandemic’s brutal effects on an industry’s eco-system – the vendors, suppliers, and contractors - and If we’re truly in this together, will make the consumer think about how they spend.

It’s not a new approach; some of the recent bushfire campaigns talked up the need to visit those affected regions, but the scourge of Covid 19 comes after those earlier difficulties.

People are tired and need a break  - they need to dream, but I would argue the smarter move in terms of those corporate narratives would be to hold off on the dream building and focus on making the togetherness message a reality.

That reality, however, can only be achieved if corporate actions speak louder than words. At a time of widespread uncertainty and growing mistrust, businesses will need to walk the walk if this idea of inclusiveness is to land. So, best not to talk about being in it together if creative tax avoidance practices or offshore labor arrangements are a feature of the organizational strategy – the regeneration narrative soon caves in.

We face an unprecedented mutual situation – the smart businesses out there will use it to cement their communal credentials; they will continue to bring people together and in turn, start the national recovery process. There will never be a better chance to highlight the value which togetherness brings, as we’ve all felt the loss when it’s gone, and as a message, it has to be now because it won’t work any time later.

This article first appeared in Mumbrella: https://mumbrella.com.au/

Would a crisis by any other name make you click?

Being someone who supports organisations in terms of their respective reputations, I’m acutely aware that I have a rather slavish relationship with crises. To clarify, it’s in my professional interest to keep abreast of business mishaps, cynical misdeeds and product failings the world over. I gauge the context and privately evaluate the response. I tell you this as I feel I’m moderately qualified to say that crisis is getting too big.

That last point needs some explanation. Crisis, as a concept, has grown exponentially in recent years. For a simple illustration, check out the Google Books Ngram Viewer, which shows use of the term has virtually doubled since the end of the Second World War. The irony that crisis was less talked during the turbulence of D-Day and the Third Reich than it is today, can’t be lost on us.

To be clear, crises sadly happen, but not at the rate at which the crisis circus – namely the media, insurance firms and some aspects of the public relations industry would let us believe. Crisis has been industrialised as it can be inordinately profitable for those who purport to have the credentials to help. Crisis – as is the case with terrorism – is increasingly being applied with indiscriminate flair to a range of events and situations. In recent weeks, we’ve had the media refer to the crisis in Syria, the crisis afflicting German football, the Thai cave crisis and crisis talks in regards to the NEG – that’s the National Energy Guarantee to the unitiated. My concerns with the broad-brush approach primarily relates to the inherent associations with the word, crisis. Our understanding of the world is shaped by the way the world is labelled. We perceive crisis to be big, calamitous events, and subsequently, we expect big repercussions if they are not managed effectively, such as the loss of senior people and a plummeting share price. It’s a short step indeed from ‘crisis’ to that other favourite media omen, ‘embattled’. Crises call for accountability. The English language is fantastically accommodating in its breadth, and to that end, to read about the Thai Cave Accident, or the Plight of the Thai Cave Boys would have been as accurate a reading of the situation as we had, but I guess they’re not as exciting, nor are they as exacting in their demands if things go wrong.

This article first appeared on the Mumbrella website

Orthodox thinking will be the death of agency

The prophetic George Orwell once wrote that “at any given moment, there is an orthodoxy – a body of ideas – which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question and a genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing”.  Orwell’s sentiments, have, sadly, never been as resonant as they are today.

We live in an age when it is becoming increasingly difficult to have a nuanced conversation about a seemingly growing number of non-sensitive issues, whether it’s same-sex marriage, immigration, Islam, or Israel. Clearly, there are others – the list is not exhaustive – but the substantive point is the corrosive effect that this new norm has on our relationships and our future welfare.

To move from the conceptual, the idea of not being able to fully debate an issue is particularly problematic for creative work spaces, especially agency-side, whose point of differentiation is the imaginative value of their work to the client. We need to give voice to all of the feelings provoked by such issues during the creative process if we’re to achieve great work. A campaign’s objective is to persuade its target audience; that audience doesn’t think homogenously, so nor should we.

I would go as far as saying that our creative leaders – whether it be advertising, PR, or marketing – are obliged to push these boundaries, and not revel in the harmless and the anodyne. Pushing those boundaries undoubtedly takes courage, but it’s vitally important that we try as conservatism is a deadening force in creativity. Clients are increasingly risk averse, but creative leaders cannot allow that to influence their creative process. Political and economic disruption in recent years has shrunk the creative space; it can’t afford to get any smaller.  

Leaders cannot do this alone, but their freethinking will prove to be the catalyst for others to join them in looking to achieve better work. Ultimately, it’s critical that the dissenters and the heretics are embraced by business for a brand to stand any chance of succeeding. It is only with these people on board do we achieve a fuller understanding of the issue (and views) at hand, and only then can teams produce an honest depiction of such matters.

It has to be said, that I don’t look to undermine the real feelings that some people may have about such issues, but to acknowledge the need to legitimise all aspects of the debate irrespective of its flavour. So, I’ve done the easy bit of identifying the potential problem – what about the solution? The idea of having a richer creative business means we need to assess how our corporate cultures can be loosened; whether that’s in the shape of recruitment or our brainstorming sessions. For instance, we need to recognise the benefits of appointing those who don’t quite think and sound like us in terms of personal viewpoints; I would also urge us to rethink the notion of collective problem solving as the reluctance to voice ideas among team members is a lot more widespread in such situations.

The heretical ones need to be welcomed and orthodoxy has to be challenged. The dissenter can, ironically, bring us closer together as team members; they can also open our eyes to those threats that have yet to emerge and the opportunities that we cannot see.

This article first appeared in Mumbrella

The London acid attacks - are Muslims involved?

It was reported late last week that a couple of miserable bastards have carried out a number of acid attacks across east London. It’s believed that the majority of those targeted are food delivery drivers; that much I learnt from the Daily Mail’s UK edition. What I didn’t learn from the Mail, The Guardian, or the broadminded Independent was whether this was an attack motivated by racial, or religious hatred. The ‘M’ word – Muslim – was almost conspicuous by its absence, especially considering the recency of another attack on cousins Resham Khan and Jameel Muhktar – yes, you guessed it, Muslims.

To raise this argument without appropriate context would appear loaded, but I bring it up in view of the Sydney Morning Herald’s report of the same incident, which you can read here. To quote, reporter Henrietta Cook, “the incidents follow a spate of recent acid attacks in east London, which have left some Muslim residents fearful about leaving their homes amid speculation that they [the attacks] may have been motivated by racial, or religious hatred”. Now, either Henrietta knows more than her UK counterparts, or they are having to be far more circumspect in light of the sensitivities and the proximity of the attacks. I suspect it’s the latter. The facts need to be fully checked before you run the risk of ensuing panic in certain communities.

However, in view of the fact that the police officially treated the attack on Khan and Muhktar as a ‘hate crime’ and the importance of the public service remit of the media to keep publics fully informed, particularly when there’s a threat to human health, it would appear fully justified to include this aspect of the narrative. I will follow future coverage closely.

What does TV impartiality look like in the age of Trump?

National broadcasters, such as the ABC and the BBC have a statutory duty to ensure that the information they share is suitably impartial. Fundamentally, the networks need to demonstrate a diversity of perspectives from a diversity of sources on a range of subject matter. This is not the same as balance; minority views, for instance should not be given equal prominence to the prevailing consensus. It’s what the BBC refer to as “due weight” – you can read their guidelines here.

So, how much weight do the broadcasters afford to the views of Donald Trump? His Chinese hoax theory in regards to climate change has been well documented – and stands in stark contrast to the scientific consensus, but he is the President of the United States. It’s a relatively easy one for the broadcasters to bat away, despite the President’s status – it’s not a position that’s widely supported (despite the tweet’s 66,000 ‘likes’) and Mr Trump has a track-record for outlandish commentary. However, despite its left field origins, the comment is clever. Why? Well it leads any curious journalist to question what exactly the Chinese are doing in regards to global warming. It’s a great example of framing an issue; there may not be a hoax, but it does put the proverbial tennis ball back in the Chinese court.

Moreover, Mr Trump’s appointment also puts the national broadcasters in an uneasy position in view of the bashing they invariably receive for their perceived left-wing tendencies – here’s a 2016 piece from the Herald. The dilemma lies in the key role that’s expected of any discerning media operator, which is to rigorously interrogate the workings of those in power, including the President of the United States. If they do what’s expected of them, the likes of the ABC and the BBC face continued charges of one-sided journalism and the loss of objectivity (which gives further leverage to the free marketeers). Yet, if they pull their punches, they stand supportive of a regime’s policies, however outrageous the facts. So, what will it be?  The question, of course, brings us back to diversity – the need for a diversity of views from a range of people. As the impact of the silent majority begins to take shape, the trick to be achieved here is getting them to speak in the first place.

The NAB Sydney move needs to be the start of something bigger.

National Australia Bank (NAB) – one of the country’s big four financial institutions – is moving its Sydney headquarters. The new home will offer staff the latest in “state-of-the-art offices” – you can read more here.

I bring this up as the bank has had its fair share of reputational woes in recent years; primarily providing customers with what’s been ruled as bad financial planning advice; in fairness, they are not alone here, with the same charges leveled at the Commonwealth Bank (CBA), ANZ and Westpac.

So, it begs the question did the bank – NAB – make its move to address its difficulties? The bank’s problems signal a need to examine the organisation’s culture; the CEO, Andrew Thorburn has, rightly, said as much, commenting that it would take 5-10 years to get “true integrity and consistency”.

Moving office presents businesses the opportunity to change, or reinforce the dominant culture. Smart companies get this; there’s enough smart people at NAB to identify the prospects that’s been afforded by the change, I’m sure.

Management guru, Edgar Schein came up with the idea of ‘cultural artifacts’ which are the tangible manifestations of corporate culture, such as buildings, uniforms and logos. So, in simple terms, the NAB state-of-the-art offices need only be state-of-the-art if the behavioural values sought by the bank, dictate that it be so – an open office arrangement would suggest an open culture, for instance.

However, it has to go further than that; a new building needs to mark the start of a process, not its culmination. The NAB move needs to be the catalyst to evaluate all aspects of the business – from recruitment, to employee benefits. If the process is limited to the seating arrangements, then the bank has already lost.

American Greats?

I appreciate that the blog’s usual preserve centres on the finer points of corporate reputation, but in light of THAT result, I hope you can indulge me this one time.

Amidst the recurring US bashing and to assuage my personal sense of upheaval on news of the 45th American President, here’s the reminder to self that it is a place of greatness and no doubt, will continue to be. Here’s my download of those Americans who ripped up the rulebook and did it their way. In no particular order, and yes, there should be more women, and yes there should be more African Americans, and certainly more Hispanics, but it was borne of instinct. America, we salute you.

1 Johnny Cash

2 F Scott Fitzgerald

3 Christopher Walken

4 Philip Roth

5 Daniel Kahneman

6 Iggy Pop

7 Gillian Anderson

8 Scooby Doo (All of them)

9 Francis Coppola

10 Norman Mailer

11 Muhammad Ali

12 Deborah Harry

13 Albert Einstein

14 Jack Nicklaus

15 Robert Frost

16 Jack White

17 Jack Cole

18 Thomas Edison

19 Ella Fitzgerald

20. David Lynch

21 Dwight D Eisenhower

22 Benicio del Toro  

23 Dian Fossey

24 Harry Callahan

25 Marvin Gaye

26 Isadora Duncan

27 Harper Lee

28 Jesse Owens

29 Neil Armstrong

30 Andrew Carnegie

31 Bill Gates

32 George Washington

33 Michael Jordan

34 Jackson Pollock

35 Walt Disney

36 Henry Ford

37. Martin Luther King

38 Rosa Parks

39 Charlie Parker

40 Edward Murrow

41 Ernest Hemingway

42 Pocahontas

43 Amelia Earhart

44 Abraham Lincoln

45 Sylvia Plath 

Etihad's 5 Star U-Turn

Abu Dhabi’s Etihad Airways took occupancy of the back page of The Australian’s Business Review last Friday to tell the paper’s readers that it’s “official – our service now comes with 5 stars”. A resplendent air hostess stands beaming under a quote from the Skytrax Audit Report, which describes how the airline’s premium rating is a “testament to innovation, high-quality service and comfort”.

Skytrax, for those who demonstrate a healthy disinterest in such aviation ranking exercises, is a UK-based consultancy, which runs reviews of commercial airlines and airports. You can read more about them here.

So, what’s the story? Well, Etihad didn’t used to be so enamoured with the Skytrax ratings; oh, no. They were the constant recipients of four Skytrax stars – even after new cabin products had been introduced – but alas, that fifth star remained out of reach. So much was the irritation at Etihad,   that the carrier announced its withdrawal from Skytrax, including its Audit and Awards, in 2014. As Skytrax pointed out at the time, the airline cannot opt to withdraw, as results are decided directly by customers, which is clearly Etihad’s good fortune as they crow with delight at finally achieving equal status with the likes of Garuda Indonesia and Hainan Airlines.

The Etihad situation does beg the question, how much is an award worth to its winners? That is a question that’s clearly open to interpretation – does Bob Dylan’s Polar Music Prize win carry as much value for the performer, as his recent Nobel Prize success? We can hazard a guess.

It is, though, a question that needs to be asked from a corporate perspective in view of the amount of energy that’s being expended in merely submitting the award entry, together with the growing sense of fatigue that surrounds some of those lesser accolades.

I won’t, however, let cynicism completely cloud my judgement, as I believe that awards to be a good thing from a number of perspectives. Firstly, they offer a vital benchmark for any organisation; a measure of collective progress. Then there’s the inherent recognition of the people involved, and of course, the brand awareness that comes with such plaudits. Lastly, the incentivising quality of such prizes to set even higher standards for the business, shouldn’t be overlooked – according to some, there’s a gulf between four and five stars, just ask Etihad.