Still, as this is a blog focused on how Israel tends to do things a little differently, I figured it might be fun to give the Israel perspective on each of the “Things.”  So here goes:

1. “Your company may be better off spending a limited budget on another form of communication, such as direct marketing or online advertising, instead of hiring a PR firm. PR is not always the best solution.”

We start off with a bang, because this one is absolutely irrelevant for Israel.  Israelis are gamblers by nature.  We like taking risks and are willing to try something against the percentages, if there is a potential jackpot pay-off at the end.  So putting those few dollars into PR makes all the sense to Israeli CEOs.  In fact, I have many times suggested to CEOs that they save their money, rather than trying to maintain a PR campaign with a too-small budget.  They tell me that they appreciate the suggestion, but then they just ask me if I can perhaps introduce them to a lower-priced PR firm or person who might be able to deal with their slim budget.

2. “The firm doesn’t have media contacts in your area. Chances are high that half the journalists a PR person worked with in the recent past are no longer with the same media outlet, and/or may not be covering the same area.”

This is really true, and I liked the message – that it’s the quality of the pitch/story that counts, and not the contacts.  At the same time, in Israel, everyone knows everyone else, so contacts are not only important, they are expected!  Of course, I don’t necessarily agree with this blogger that contacts don’t remain contacts from client campaign to client campaign.  Also, the business/top-tier media contacts don’t change as often, and those are the outlets that really move the needle for clients who want to introduce themselves to the world.  And in the land of innovation that is Israel, there is a great deal of benefit to such an introduction-focus.

3. “What you want the PR firm to do is not what you really need. Clients should look for PR companies that will consult with them and develop strategies, not just do as they’re told. After all, aren’t you paying for expertise?”

This is super-duper true here in Israel.  Clients know they want PR, and they know that articles about the company will help them, but they don’t have the sophisticated PR infrastructures in place to actually have someone thinking about strategy day-to-day.  Truth be told, they outsource the strategic thinking to us – the PR firm.  So in addition to getting results, we are also in charge of asking the question: “How is this PR activity or campaign helping your business?”

4. “Your expectations and goals for PR are too high. Of course you think your company and products are media- and buzz-worthy, but it’s hard for you to be objective. It’s not unusual to hear a prospective client say, “We want to be in The Wall Street Journal or on ‘The Today Show,’ or create record-breaking buzz about our product on Facebook.”

Well, the high expectations of Israelis are legendary at this point, right?  But hey, in a country where they have somehow been able to invent the cell phone, instant messaging, the swallow-able camera and the standard for firewall software, while fighting wars for survival every few years, why shouldn’t a company think that the impossible IS possible?  So I’m okay with this one, and we actually find it galvanizing to have such high expectations.  We don’t always meet them, but when we do, it’s an amazing feeling.

5. “You don’t have a big enough budget to “move the needle.” In every situation there’s a minimum amount of money that’s necessary to get good PR results. Rather than say your budget is inadequate, some PR companies will take what they can as long as you can pay until you realize they’re not giving you the results you need.”

I don’t think I will address this one.  The others above are fair critiques of the industry.  This one just points to a dishonesty that seems to be in place, and that’s bad enough.  Let’s move on …

6. “Your company has to spend time and effort working with the PR firm to make the plan a success. For starters, you need to thoroughly brief the PR team regularly. It isn’t possible for an agency to do great PR for your company if your executives won’t make themselves available for interviews, or don’t get back to the agency in a timely way to answer media questions.”

True, and a real problem here in Israel where marketing teams are often comprised of just one or two people.  Still, when the client DOES brief us regularly, it works so well.  And we actually speak with those clients who don’t, and give them examples of the great results we achieve for those clients who do keep us up to speed.

So that’s the Israeli take on the “6 things,” but as you can see, sometimes it may be necessary to not say certain things, if they will only fall on deaf ears …

Recently, Ruder Finn had the privilege of providing all international communications services for the annual Facing Tomorrow conference hosted by the president of Israel, Shimon Peres.  It was both an honor to work such a prestigious event and an opportunity to strut our stuff, given that the conference organizers had been disappointed with the international PR efforts of the past conferences.

So several months prior to the event, we began our work, knowing full-well that the most intense period of work would be immediately preceding and during the conference.

Then, a month before, we got word from another client that someone from our team would be needed in Singapore for a key event there on precisely the same days as Facing Tomorrow.

I had a choice.  Send Matt to Singapore, given that the account needing us there was one of his, but sacrifice my quarterback at the President’s conference; or keep Matt in Israel for Facing Tomorrow and go to Singapore myself.

I chose the latter for two reasons:

1. I had done these types of telecom events many times over the years, so I knew we were sincerely offering our best to that client; and
2. Matt had worked so hard on the President’s conference and I wanted him to see the whole thing through to the end.

So that is what we did.  I flew to Singapore and handled the telecom event and Matt stayed in Israel to run the show at Facing Tomorrow.

Singapore was fine, but the performance by Matt and the rest of the team at the President’s Conference was nothing short of spectacular.  Our client was elated.  The media results were outstanding.  The team operated as a supportive unit.  And everyone felt so positive about the experience ….

You know, I’ve been in PR for almost 20 years now.

I love writing for our clients and I love developing strategies.  I love brainstorming creative ideas and I love bringing in new, exciting accounts.

But nothing compares to the pride and happiness I feel when my team succeeds … even if I’m thousands of miles away when it happens.

So given that professional experience, it should be relatively simple to diagnose the PR problems Israel is having and prescribe a certain program to improve the situation.

And it is simple, but not in the way you might think.

Much has been written over the past few weeks – ever since “The Flotilla Affair” – about the overall weakness of Israel’s PR, both when crises hit and in general.  In fact, journalist Yair Lapid wrote a column about it on June 4.  And the Jerusalem Post wrote an extensive article this past weekend about the branding of Jerusalem, in the context of “The Affair” and the regional conflict as a whole.  And they all brought wonderful examples of how and why Israel’s PR has missed the mark.

But I’m afraid they’ve missed the mark as well.

Lapid laments Information Minister Yuli Edelstein’s frustrating cell phone contact system.  And he’s right.  Edelstein’s system of screening and passwords stinks.  But he’s also wrong, because a better contacting system for Edelstein wouldn’t help Israel’s image one bit, due to a much larger problem, which I will mention soon enough.  Fixing his voicemail wouldn’t help fight the incredible PR machine our enemies have built.

And the J. Post article misses the point as well.  Here’s a short excerpt:

As the dust begins to settle around the flotilla events, Jerusalem is in the midst of starting its new public relations campaign, “Something Good Is Happening in Jerusalem.” The municipality is pushing aggressively to recast the city as a cultural destination, whose international importance in the world of art and music is just as celebrated as the city’s historical and religious significance.

This being Jerusalem, a few problems have cropped up.

“Jerusalem’s brand is undermined by troubles and how the media portrays it,” says Foster George, a tourist from London in Jerusalem for a week as he strolls through Jaffa Gate for the first time.

“The image of Jerusalem is so tied to Israel abroad which, unfortunately, especially now, is not so positive,” adds another tourist, Kate Engberg from Gothenburg, Sweden.

The problem, this article suggests, is that as long as Israel is not able to separate the politics from the tourism, Jerusalem’s tourism industry is going to suffer.  But again, the J. Post is incorrect.  Jerusalem is the center of the religious universe, and as such is going to be the hottest point on Earth for conflict.  That is the deal and we must all understand and even embrace that.  But this is irrelevant as well, in terms of the larger question about Israel’s PR, although we are getting closer to the point.

Another PR complaint over the years has been the lack of Israel spokespeople who are able to speak strong English.  Well, we now have Mark Regev at the wheel, one of the best I’ve ever seen, as well as Michael Oren in the U.S., who is also fantastic.

And yet, Israel has had one of its worst PR runs over the last 12 months that it has had in decades.  Doesn’t this seem strange to you?

How can it be that we did better PR during the post-9/11 phase, when Ariel Sharon was prime minister, than we are doing now, when U.S.-educated Binyamin Netanyahu is at the helm?

When you consider the overall futility of the three above arguments of 1. Logistical ineptitude (the Edelstein example), 2. Brushing aside the negative, in favor of the positive (the Jerusalem tourism example) and 3. Native-English-speaking spokespeople (The Regev-Oren-Bibi example), there is only one conclusion that should be drawn.

It’s not about any of these things.

To understand why we are failing, we must first look at why the other side is succeeding.  And the answer to that question is simple: A Unified Message.

It wouldn’t matter if Edelstein drank Red Bull 24 hours a day and was 100% available for all requested interviews.  Because an hour later, someone from the government opposition will submit to an interview and completely contradict what Edelstein has said.

It doesn’t matter that Jerusalem has wonderful views, great restaurants and almost-perfect weather, especially this time of year.  Because the world is being told – by Jewish-Israelis – on a regular basis that Jerusalem is a place of conflict, and that it is all the fault of the Jews.

And it doesn’t matter that we have our strongest international spokespeople since the days of Golda Meir and Abba Eban.

Because we do not have that item that can often be the difference between success and failure for any PR campaign.  In fact, it should be the cornerstone of any campaign.

It is the unified message.

After 9/11, Israel was unified, not only in its condemnation of the attack, but in its message to the world of “You see!  This is what we’ve been going through!  Now, do you understand us?”

But time has “healed,” and we have once again descended to our previous disagreements and ideologies.  We are not united.

And sadly, if Israel itself is not unified – as our enemies are, for the purpose of destroying Israel – then there will be no unified message, and we will continue to lose the PR battle, even if we are right.

So, please do not waste your time analyzing the PR strategy – or even lack thereof – or tactical approach of the Israeli government.  It’s not about that.  It’s the same problem that has plagued the Jewish people for centuries. We can’t unify.  Even about a message.  Even when our future is at stake.

]]> http://www.ruderfinn.co.il/communicating-promise/2010/06/why-israel-cannot-solve-its-pr-challenge-or-its-the-message-stupid.html/feed 3 http://www.ruderfinn.co.il/communicating-promise/2010/02/when-stupid-rules.html http://www.ruderfinn.co.il/communicating-promise/2010/02/when-stupid-rules.html#comments Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:08:39 +0000 Glenn Jasper http://www.ruderfinn.co.il/communicating-promise/?p=87 I often ask myself, how is it that many Israeli companies that receive tens of millions of dollars in funding … not to mention the tens of millions in profits, are unable to spend a reasonable amount per month on a PR campaign?

Today, I finally realized the answer.  It is simple.  They are stupid.

Stupid means that a company can spend tens of thousands of dollars on a single advertorial, because the CEO likes to see his/her face in a magazine, but won’t spend that kind of money on a PR campaign because there is no guaranteed ROI.  Of course, it doesn’t matter that the advertorial they bought gave no ROI either.  At least the CEO can show the picture to his army buddies, right?

Stupid means that a company embarks on a branding campaign that does not have market research as one of its preliminary elements.  And when the branding firm – which the company paid $50,000 to develop the new branding, unveils a name that sounds ridiculously similar to another Israeli company’s name, and the color scheme does as well, the company is forced to accept it because, well, they paid $50,000, and it would be a shame to let that money go to waste.

Stupid means that a company believes it only has $1,000 per month for international PR, so it hires a second-rate freelancer to do the job, when that money would be better spent on Google Ads or, frankly, snacks for the staff.  Any PR firm willing to accept $1,000 per month for international services can’t get the job done.  I assure you of that.

Stupid means that a company spends $150,000 on a small booth at a gigantic trade show, but won’t spend a few thousand on a PR firm to secure them interviews while they are there.

Stupid means that a company produces items that are marketed for tens of thousands of dollars apiece – and bought by thousands of customers, but doesn’t have the money to commit to a momentum-building PR campaign that, over the course of a year, will cost the company the same amount as a single one of their products will cost a single customer.

Of course, there are also smart Israeli companies, and they are a pleasure to work with.

Smart means that a company gives its agency access to as much information as possible so the agency can decide which items may be newsworthy.

Smart means that a company provides its agency an efficient, but reasonable budget, so the agency will feel motivated to provide outstanding service.

Smart means that a company is just as interested in the constructive feedback a journalist gives when the answer is “no,” as they are in securing the “hit.”

Smart means that a company considers PR to be not only a marketing function, but a corporate function as well, since positive PR will impact all audiences positively and negative PR will impact all audiences negatively.

So here’s the kicker, which is also simple …

Over my five years here, I’ve found a direct correlation between a company’s ability to be smart versus stupid, and a company’s likelihood to be successful versus unsuccessful.