PR’s Responsibilities at the Fifth Summit of the Americas

In an unprecedented move, PM Patrick Manning sat down for  a frank interview with broadcast journalist, Shelly Dass, last evening. I say unprecedented because rarely do we see government minister's having  open discussions, inviting calls from the public and attempting to be open.  

Midway through her interview, Dass, who incidentally was at her best, asked: "Prime Minister Manning why are you doing this?  Why have you agreed to open the  phone lines and take calls." 

They were relevant questions. 

The  Fifth Summit of the Americas  has evolved into a PR debacle. There has only been one signatory to the Declaration, the media, both local and international have been extremely critical of the tactile press approaches, a peaceful march turned confrontational and the public is none the wiser about the benefits  of the extraordinary bill (still not quantified) that taxpayers must now come to terms with. 

 No one but the PM could have explained the mess.  And no matter what side of the political fence you straddle, the voice of Manning in the vortex of misinformation,  spin  and disillusion was a much needed one since it allowed the people the opportunity to really understand, ask questions and be part of the discussion.

I don't think it is  too late. Yesterday, just before the Prime Minister's  address, I sat in a meeting with senior communicators discussing what  PR could have done  to improve the way the messages and stories  of  the Fifth Summit were told, turns out there are plenty clear areas for improvement, as follows:

1) Context: Not enough time was spent on breaking down the big messages of economic prosperity, energy security and environmental sustainability. At the end of the Summit, few  were wiser about the meaning of these  big geo-politcal hemispheric messages. There should have been a series of interviews across all mediums (including new media) utilising  credible voices. And those messages should have been told over and over again starting three months in the lead up to the Summit.

2) Media Engagement: The media took control of the messages from the start by asking relevant questions and pointing scrooge like fingers to the perception that the Government was spending heaps of money on an event that would have no real benefit to the country. The Summit Secretariat could have filled an information void again by communicating  the central role of the Summit in improving society, generating jobs, or raising living standards much earlier than they did, thus preventing the negative knee jerk reaction.    

3) The  supporting cast of spokespeople:  It is no longer possible for a single voice, such as a Summit Spokesperson,  to carry the day. Nor is it sufficient to have behind the scenes lobbying to make the case (now the outside game and the inside game). Where were the important figures in international relations and diplomacy who could have provided necessary backing for the Summit? How about using trusted figures from those who have provided distinguished service in the past  to offset the broadsides of those who condemned the Summit.

4) Make your media engagement exceptional. There should be no room for error here. First there is the matter of managing the  expectations of this important public. The pooling system is an international best practice but instead of holding a press conference to explain it to the local media (from all accounts, this was done poorly),  journalists should  have been afforded a  guided tour of the IFC  Building (home to the media centre) ahead of the Summit. A dummy media room should have been set up and  a credible voice utilised  to explain the intricacies of covering a Summit.  Distributing media guidelines in a booklet form at that point would have helped. This was done but too late. The  media centre too should have been staffed with  former journalists, people who understand the importance of deadlines, accuracy, timeliness, pooling etc. 

5) Persons Like Me: There were few story lines for the Little Guy. Why not put forward  a strong leader from private sector someone who could  talk about the temporary job creation for  small businesses and how could they access the opportunities arising form the Summit. Make the communications simple and  transparent. Let the entertainers, the builders, the writers, the artists, the entrepreneurs tell their stories in different ways. 

There are many lessons to be learned and the November Commonwealth Heads of State meeting will be another litmus test to see if we have.  But here's the biggest lesson and it struck me last night as I listened to the Prime Minister: the only way to demonstrate performance is through transparent goals and  the only way to create public buy-in and support  is for the leader to share the those goals through direct,  honest and continuous engagement. 

In this Summit there has not been a whole lot of that.

What PM Manning did last evening was just a first step. My  hope is that it continues. 

As always I appreciate your views.