Are there any trust surveys for water agencies?
Water and California have lived a contentious live for more than 100 years. As "documented" in the film Chinatown, those pesky Southern California businessmen "stole" water from the landowners of the eastern Sierra Nevada to help turn Los Angeles into a global economic engine.
Perhaps aided by the film, the ill feelings remain around to this day. Talk about a bad taste lasting in your mouth for a while.
Whether you're a water agency or a major corporation, trust is critical. (Note: the annual "Edelman Trust Barometer" is out today).
For the past decade, at least, water agencies in California and across the country have been studying ways to build reputation. Driving this has been the increased use of bottled water ("What, you don't trust tap water?") and price increases (witness the public reaction to the latest price hike proposal in the Sacramento area). I was part of an informal gathering of agencies trying to figure out a campaign to build trust in water agencies. The Water Research Foundation has commissioned reports about improving public trust.
Sadly, most water agencies spend more time worrying about image, or trying to explain the complexities of what they do, rather than take bold steps to build trust.
It's a challenge. One factor influencing the angst over public trust of water agencies is purely political. A handful of directors elected to water boards view their positions as stepping stones to higher office. If they can't build voter support at the water board agency level, then....
Also, water agencies sometimes are on "the other side" of environmental questions. A water project sometimes will create significant environmental issues, which then pits a water agency against a well-run environmental group. They should be on the same side.
Like many corporations, water agencies have the daily tasks to be concerned with and rarely afford enough time to look at the big, longer-range picture. And, then, they are puzzled why a rate hike is shot down by the public.
Water agencies also are the "most local" utility around. The headquarters for gas and electric utilities may not even be in the same state and the regulatory bodies that decide rate increases are hundreds of miles away.
What's the answer, or...answers?
Somewhere along this liquid history, water agencies lost a great reputation/brand - that of being an agency created to protect the public health. What better image could water agencies enjoy and maintain? Is it too late to try to recapture and promote this reputation?
With water price hikes in the short-term future for water agencies - and these hikes sometimes in the 40-50 percent range! - strategies to build trust and improve reputation are needed now more than ever.
Even with a well planned reputation strategy, customers may still grumble about rate hikes, but at least they will understand why and begin to trust their local water agency with "doing the right thing."
Right now, water agencies are too easy a target for voter/customer anger.
Showing posts with label water. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Sticker shock for water
What happens when you blend a bad economy, labor costs, an effective outreach campaign and a drought?
Of course, higher water rates.
What happens over the next year or two will be worth a look for any PR professional and, for some, worth a deeper venture to offer your expertise. A bold prediction but this could be the next big "consumer experiment." The laboratory we like to call public sentiment could see some new tests, twists and turns from water rate increases.
Until now, water utilities have escaped serious consumer backlash from periodic rate increases. As the cheapest bill on one's desk, water doesn't generate the level of anger or frustration that, say, our phone bills do or another increase in health insurance. For sure, there have been sporadic consumer protests, but they remain scattered and short-lived.
Widespread consumer revolt is also muted because water is "local" and mostly unregulated. Gas and electric utilities have 100 times or greater number of customers, are more regulated and have major consumer watchdog groups going to battle over every rate increase request. Although private water companies are regulated and have combined larger customer bases, lower water bills generally keep consumers quiet.
Soon, I believe, the angry consumer will focus their frustration on the water bill.
Why? Water (and corresponding sewer) rate hikes have taken hold, a lawsuit already has been filed, a massive water bond was delayed but will likely come back, the economy is impacting water use, and perhaps some really big whammies are just around the corner.
It's easy to see that what we pay for water will soon be at the level of our other utility (commodity) bills. In some places, it's already at that level and if you own a large amount of land, the water bill could exceed the other utility costs.
It is a public relations conundrum.
On the one hand, some really effective public outreach campaigns in CA have successfully changed water behaviors. Although precise studies are lacking for the region, individual cities like Los Angeles and Long Beach are reporting per-capita reductions. A few dry years, nearly a decade of persistent water conservation messaging, the imposition of mandatory water restrictions (only water your lawn 3X a week), greater acceptance of "green" calls to action and some unique rebates have combined in such a way that consumers have permanently changed their water habits.
Now add a bad economy into the mix. Consider the number of homes lost in foreclosure, sitting idle without any water use. Consider former homeowners now renting homes - and choosing to save money by letting their lawns die ("Why should I care? It's either I'm paying the water bill or the rent - can't afford both" - actual quote from a renter I know).
When consumers use less water, that means a drop in revenue to water utilities that are stuck with huge fixed costs - like labor - and rising costs - like pipeline maintenance, power and water treatment supplies. Don't forget pension commitments, either.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (my former employer - and yes, full disclosure, I get a meager pension and health benefits through an option to "retire") already has raised rates nearly 50% and has no plans to stop. A preview of "how bad" water rates could be for nearly 20 million people may occur next week (Nov. 23) when a special board committee looks at the future. Just how do you handle a $120-150 million revenue shortfall?
What happens at MWD spreads out at practically every local water agency between Ventura and San Diego. The rate structure MWD adopts now will be felt in a year or two at the local level. MWD supplies about half the water needs for Southern California.
As evidenced this week in Oceanside, changing political landscapes will also enter into the blender of water rate discussions.
Perhaps water will need to take pages from the playbooks of other utilities. Cost cutting is a major focus of energy as are the advantages of a Smart Grid and putting the responsibility of energy management in the hands of consumers. But will water agencies be able to cut costs fast enough to avoid the major rate hike?
One more item to add into the discussion - the long-standing perception among individuals that water is different from other utilities. One needs water to live.
Stay tuned. Stock the fridge and find a comfy chair. This show will be a good one. Watch this blog for more on this topic.
Of course, higher water rates.
What happens over the next year or two will be worth a look for any PR professional and, for some, worth a deeper venture to offer your expertise. A bold prediction but this could be the next big "consumer experiment." The laboratory we like to call public sentiment could see some new tests, twists and turns from water rate increases.
Until now, water utilities have escaped serious consumer backlash from periodic rate increases. As the cheapest bill on one's desk, water doesn't generate the level of anger or frustration that, say, our phone bills do or another increase in health insurance. For sure, there have been sporadic consumer protests, but they remain scattered and short-lived.
Widespread consumer revolt is also muted because water is "local" and mostly unregulated. Gas and electric utilities have 100 times or greater number of customers, are more regulated and have major consumer watchdog groups going to battle over every rate increase request. Although private water companies are regulated and have combined larger customer bases, lower water bills generally keep consumers quiet.
Soon, I believe, the angry consumer will focus their frustration on the water bill.
Why? Water (and corresponding sewer) rate hikes have taken hold, a lawsuit already has been filed, a massive water bond was delayed but will likely come back, the economy is impacting water use, and perhaps some really big whammies are just around the corner.
It's easy to see that what we pay for water will soon be at the level of our other utility (commodity) bills. In some places, it's already at that level and if you own a large amount of land, the water bill could exceed the other utility costs.
It is a public relations conundrum.
On the one hand, some really effective public outreach campaigns in CA have successfully changed water behaviors. Although precise studies are lacking for the region, individual cities like Los Angeles and Long Beach are reporting per-capita reductions. A few dry years, nearly a decade of persistent water conservation messaging, the imposition of mandatory water restrictions (only water your lawn 3X a week), greater acceptance of "green" calls to action and some unique rebates have combined in such a way that consumers have permanently changed their water habits.
Now add a bad economy into the mix. Consider the number of homes lost in foreclosure, sitting idle without any water use. Consider former homeowners now renting homes - and choosing to save money by letting their lawns die ("Why should I care? It's either I'm paying the water bill or the rent - can't afford both" - actual quote from a renter I know).
When consumers use less water, that means a drop in revenue to water utilities that are stuck with huge fixed costs - like labor - and rising costs - like pipeline maintenance, power and water treatment supplies. Don't forget pension commitments, either.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (my former employer - and yes, full disclosure, I get a meager pension and health benefits through an option to "retire") already has raised rates nearly 50% and has no plans to stop. A preview of "how bad" water rates could be for nearly 20 million people may occur next week (Nov. 23) when a special board committee looks at the future. Just how do you handle a $120-150 million revenue shortfall?
What happens at MWD spreads out at practically every local water agency between Ventura and San Diego. The rate structure MWD adopts now will be felt in a year or two at the local level. MWD supplies about half the water needs for Southern California.
As evidenced this week in Oceanside, changing political landscapes will also enter into the blender of water rate discussions.
Perhaps water will need to take pages from the playbooks of other utilities. Cost cutting is a major focus of energy as are the advantages of a Smart Grid and putting the responsibility of energy management in the hands of consumers. But will water agencies be able to cut costs fast enough to avoid the major rate hike?
One more item to add into the discussion - the long-standing perception among individuals that water is different from other utilities. One needs water to live.
Stay tuned. Stock the fridge and find a comfy chair. This show will be a good one. Watch this blog for more on this topic.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Water over the dam?
In six months, Californians will vote on one of the biggest public water bonds in the nation's history.
However, this week, in central California - the election is now.
Hundreds of the state's water leaders will gather in Monterey for the semi-annual conference of the Association of California Water Agencies. ACWA represents the largest percentage of water interests (hundreds of private water companies, groundwater groups and a few others are generally not members of ACWA).
The bond will be the talk of this conference. It will be the rallying cry. Behind most presentations will be THE BOND.
Although some bond election efforts began months ago (and another push naturally starts after the June primary is done), the REALLY BIG push begins this week once the state's major water players leave Monterey, armed with inspiration, key messages and, hopefully, a better sense of how the campaign will be waged.
Gauging from prior gatherings, big news may come out of the conference. But, I predict, an end to the drought won't be declared here - nor anywhere else in 2010. (I'll explain "why" further down).
This "non-news" or silence could be the loudest and most deciding factor in the November election, and will be important for state water leaders to understand during all the speeches in Monterey this week.
Snow has built up on the Sierra Mountains, putting pressure on the Schwarzenegger administration to declare an end to the state's three-year drought.
Of course, since this is a blog about public relations, it is interesting to see how multiple sides are waging their battles over the $11+ billion bond to improve the state's water supplies. If you are keeping track (and more of that here), below are some of the tactics and arguments in favor or opposed:
- Some unions oppose because debt payments on the bond will cut into the states general fund and, therefore, affect the size of future state wage increases and benefits;
- A leading farm organization opposes because it is trying to leverage some guarantees - totally unrelated to water - from the state Legislature in exchange for a support position;
- Many environmental groups and some politicians allege the bond is filled with pork projects (CA Legislature admits this) and will only lead to further environmental damage (dams?) without securing more water conservation (read: growth continues in CA).
From an "advantage" standpoint, declaring an end to the drought would likely have significant implications on the success of the bond's passage. As someone directly involved in one (failed) state initiative and behind the scenes in a few others, and as someone whose career involves understanding public sentiment, having a hammer like a "drought" hanging over one's head is extremely helpful in trying to win favor for a water bond. It also helps to have a drought-themed message to neutralize the bond has too much pork drumbeat. If the drought is declared over, then bond proponents will be left with using a bag full of less-dramatic, less-compelling and certainly less romantic arguments and messages.
The last water bond in 2006 won because proponents used "protecting nature," "clean water" and "saving our coastlines" as key message points. Who wouldn't love these images floating around in the minds of the electorate as they head to the polls? What's more: Writers of previous initiatives secured endorsements from environmental groups, like The Nature Conservancy, because the bond measures included features that they wanted. And, there were not really any lawmakers who could vocalize opposition to a point of being noticed.
Yet, this year, environmentalists and a few lawmakers are taking various shots at the November water bond, and it's getting some play in the news media. The good news for supporters is that most of these attacks are technical in nature. They are arguing the finer points of CA's water complex system - and history. Complexity and detail are not going to win elections because they only confuse and alienate voters (and the news media). Old battles are not to be fought here, lads.
What will decide the bond are more traditional factors, such as:
- Will the economy be upbeat? In a good economy, voters feel less reluctant to vote against money-related ballot measures. Currently, we're trending to better times in November;
- Endorsements. Can opponents join forces and have their arguments heard in a unified voice over the roar of a well-funded proponent campaign? Not likely;
- Turnout. This is a mostly GOP-supported bond in a year with the governorship at stake. If a GOP candidate wins for governor, it's likely the bond will do well. Although we have leading Dems supporting this bond, it's still a partisan election;
- Local. The battle for this bond will be waged in the backyards of every water agency and state legislative district. If proponents do a good job explaining how this bond will benefit "my" community, it will pass, and;
- Money. The last water bond passed with more than $30 million in outreach and advertising. My guess: the November water bond will need at least a $50 million election budget to win. (Interesting to watch: The "Save Our Water" campaign is ramping up again this year. It wasn't around in the last water bond election. It is modestly funded. Will these water conservation message have an influence on the bond?).
Now, before someone reads this column and says, "You see, those PR folks want to keep the drought around just to win the water bond," let me offer some science and other factors about why the drought won't be over anytime soon (at least not in 2010):
- Although we have a large snowpack, the DWR already is predicting that a large amount of runoff will be absorbed back into a very dry watershed even before it reaches rivers and other surface water sources that feed our state system. So, 140+ percent of snowpack won't translate into 140+ percent of water into the state system;
- The snowpack will be enough to give us a normal supply year, but not enough to refill our depleted reservoirs. (See "court restrictions" below);
- One good year does not end a drought. This is the case in the upper Colorado River watershed, which is still experiencing an extended drought in spite of two "above-average" years of rainfall, and;
- Although not part of the typical drought equation, court orders restricting water flows out of the Delta will limit supplies to cities and farms regardless of how much snow rests in the Sierras. Declaring a drought over with court orders still in place will create serious confusion in this important election year.
See you in Monterey and on the campaign trail.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Week in review
A few notables in the PR world this week:
BIG CHANGE of the Week.
My journalist background, which included being an editor of a newspaper, meant I was a stickler for grammar, spelling and the AP Stylebook. "AP Style" settled all disputes, including difficult ones I encountered as a PR professional. ("Why can you capitalize Our Energy Program?"). One change I frequently made in copy was The Associated Press' insistence to call it a "Web site." (Capital "W" and two words.) On Friday, AP changed the phrase to lowercase and one word. So, everyone, it is now "website." You win.
SURPRISE of the Week.
The amazing lack of continued analysis of Tiger Woods' emergence. Sports writers did a fair job analyzing (attacking?) his mood after finishing 4th in The Masters. One of the best analyses was here. And, there was some attention given to the announcement of his next match (April 29 in North Carolina). But for all the attention given Tiger in advance of his return to golf, the silence after the match was unexpected. As written earlier, the Woods saga is a great case study for public relations. Perhaps Tiger is not as big as some of us predicted. For all the PR analysis dumped on us since last Thanksgiving, the post-first-game-back analysis by PR professionals was severely lacking. Often I and my colleagues will counsel clients through a crisis, saying it just will be a matter of time before the crisis is over and "yesterday's news."
Of course, this is a personal tragedy and the question is whether Tiger can be forgiven to the point that he can gain back some portion of his incredible pre-scandal popularity whereby sponsors use him again to pitch their products. Sorry, Tiger, but you are a lab rat in this study. The question now is how much longer with the science experiment - the analysis - continue?
LATE BREAKING news of the Week.
The old saying in PR is to break bad news on a Friday. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission did just that in charging Goldman Sachs with fraud. Aside from losing $12 billion in shareholder value at the end of trading Friday, Goldman Sachs - previously a Wall Street darling - now has a major public relations situation on its hands. No doubt, teams are working overtime in crafting statements, preparing for continued bad news, and developing a counter-attack. So, yes, another case study in the making.
YAWN of the week?
Water is big news in California in 2010. So, when two big groups came together to set up a series of public meetings this past week in Southern California to discuss (sell?) the $11 billion water bond on the November ballot, why was attendance so low and why did the news media not show up? Expect this attention deficit to end after the June primary, when pro-bond publicity engines fill their tanks and increase the noise level.
Social Media's biggest news
Twitter's announcement that it will, finally, make money was one of the biggest stories of the month, if not the year. Promoted tweets add a new dimension to how others already making money off of Twitter. (See a story here about an indie band earning some cash.). Twitter is rolling out slow with this one, but look for PR folks to go into overdrive on the creativity front because of this new dimension (threat?). Twitter's dramatic rise in popularity made for some very clear PR and marketing strategies to promote clients. With Twitter now offering an advertising platform, look for new strategies from the PR side to remain relevant.
BIG CHANGE of the Week.
My journalist background, which included being an editor of a newspaper, meant I was a stickler for grammar, spelling and the AP Stylebook. "AP Style" settled all disputes, including difficult ones I encountered as a PR professional. ("Why can you capitalize Our Energy Program?"). One change I frequently made in copy was The Associated Press' insistence to call it a "Web site." (Capital "W" and two words.) On Friday, AP changed the phrase to lowercase and one word. So, everyone, it is now "website." You win.
SURPRISE of the Week.
The amazing lack of continued analysis of Tiger Woods' emergence. Sports writers did a fair job analyzing (attacking?) his mood after finishing 4th in The Masters. One of the best analyses was here. And, there was some attention given to the announcement of his next match (April 29 in North Carolina). But for all the attention given Tiger in advance of his return to golf, the silence after the match was unexpected. As written earlier, the Woods saga is a great case study for public relations. Perhaps Tiger is not as big as some of us predicted. For all the PR analysis dumped on us since last Thanksgiving, the post-first-game-back analysis by PR professionals was severely lacking. Often I and my colleagues will counsel clients through a crisis, saying it just will be a matter of time before the crisis is over and "yesterday's news."
Of course, this is a personal tragedy and the question is whether Tiger can be forgiven to the point that he can gain back some portion of his incredible pre-scandal popularity whereby sponsors use him again to pitch their products. Sorry, Tiger, but you are a lab rat in this study. The question now is how much longer with the science experiment - the analysis - continue?
LATE BREAKING news of the Week.
The old saying in PR is to break bad news on a Friday. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission did just that in charging Goldman Sachs with fraud. Aside from losing $12 billion in shareholder value at the end of trading Friday, Goldman Sachs - previously a Wall Street darling - now has a major public relations situation on its hands. No doubt, teams are working overtime in crafting statements, preparing for continued bad news, and developing a counter-attack. So, yes, another case study in the making.
YAWN of the week?
Water is big news in California in 2010. So, when two big groups came together to set up a series of public meetings this past week in Southern California to discuss (sell?) the $11 billion water bond on the November ballot, why was attendance so low and why did the news media not show up? Expect this attention deficit to end after the June primary, when pro-bond publicity engines fill their tanks and increase the noise level.
Social Media's biggest news
Twitter's announcement that it will, finally, make money was one of the biggest stories of the month, if not the year. Promoted tweets add a new dimension to how others already making money off of Twitter. (See a story here about an indie band earning some cash.). Twitter is rolling out slow with this one, but look for PR folks to go into overdrive on the creativity front because of this new dimension (threat?). Twitter's dramatic rise in popularity made for some very clear PR and marketing strategies to promote clients. With Twitter now offering an advertising platform, look for new strategies from the PR side to remain relevant.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Muddy waters?
Public disclosure and public relations can and do co-exist. But in recent examples and with another "big game" at stake - the matter is not resolved by any stretch.
The health care debate has cast attention on deception and "front groups" created by the health care, insurance or pharmaceutical industries. A prominent public relations executive detailed at the 2009 PRSA conference why he left a cushy insurance industry job for this reason.
The next ethical spotlight could very well be cast in California in 2010.
California water wars are notorious. As soon as a drop falls from the skies and lands in the Golden State (as well as other Western states), it is "game on" for control.
California is "water rich" in the north and "people rich" in the south. Hence, the need to build canals to send water hundreds of miles from mountains and rivers to population centers. The most notable skirmish is the city of Los Angeles' epic takeover of Owens Valley water rights (as portrayed in "Chinatown").
Numerous books have been written about how various parties - from the state's large farming concerns to urban water agencies to well-organized environmental groups - wage intense, high-priced battles over this precious resource. I once worked for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which was created to build and manage a 200+ mile pipeline to transport water from the Colorado River to one of the largest populations in the world.
This year, California's lawmakers passed a series of monumental bills designed to protect the major faucet in our our massive water system - the Delta.
This was big. This was huge. It's been more than 30 years since acts of similar magnitude were accomplished.
Passage came after major political battles. I mean, major political battles. This column can't adequately summarize the extent of these multiple negotiations except to say that anytime you mix legal rights (like property rights), the country's biggest agriculture concerns, some of the most cunning environmental groups, millionaires, lawyers, lobbyists, the governor, public affairs strategists - each with their own agenda to carry - it is, well, manic and complicated. Trades and favors are exchanged in mostly painful ways.
California's water picture involves a mix of public relations, public affairs and lobbying. And, money. Water is perhaps one of the most complex issues in California.
Given the stakes, many public relations and public affairs firms in CA have been called upon to develop and implement various campaigns.
Now comes an article from an independent news organization about "front groups" apparently created and managed by public affairs firms or similar interests. A few "Friends of the.." popped up in the latest CA water battle. This is old stuff in California. With this state's predisposition for legislation through ballot initiative, we've seen these "Friends of..." or "Citizens for...." groups suddenly emerge to support their side of the issue. Heck, voters in California will see four or five "firefighter" organizations endorsing ballot measures or candidates. Firefighters consistently earn the most trust among citizens, so their endorsements are continually sought. But it's now difficult to figure out which firefighter group to follow.
While not new, front groups can pose issues in terms of public disclosure or creating public confusion. The Public Relations Society of America has guidelines, ethical standards and periodic bulletins that practitioners should follow when conducting business on behalf of a client, company or organization.
One thing should be clear: A public affairs firm or public relations agency is best suited to develop and manage an issues campaign.
In most cases, a firm is hired by an existing organization and there is no question whose side is being promoted. But in cases where multiple entities or individuals have a "case" to make and no organization exists, a "Friends of.." group is created. Or, call them "front groups." Now comes the tricky part in terms of disclosure - and the source of the recent news examination as to who funds these groups and their true intentions.
"Pop-up" groups that don't fully disclose their financial supporters or intentions cast an unwanted negative shadow over the other organizations that do disclose. They also can "muddy the waters" in a legitimate debate of the issues.
As the media director for a CA ballot initiative in the 1990s, I made it clear who I represented and their financial support. Once I disclosed this with reporters and editorial boards (and disclosure was made upfront), I was able to have a better discussion of the issue with news organizations. I believe our honesty - combined with a well crafted campaign - earned us points at the polls.
As 2010 approaches in California, we now brace for more "pop-up"groups to form in the debate over an $11 billion bond measure to fund major water projects in the state. Yes, I said "$11 billion." On the ballot in November 2010.
This is the final piece of the massive battle over how to fix the state's water system. With this kind of money at stake, it's easy to conclude that my public affairs colleagues will be gainfully employed next year.
Already, we have seen some groups forming their opposition to the measure, or using the bond issue to redirect public debate toward their issues. Strategies are being formed. Money collecting has begun to pay for advertisements and public affairs strategists.
Confusion is ahead. Scare tactics are inevitable.
The question relevant to the public relations profession and the hundreds of public affairs professionals doing business in CA is whether all front groups and organizations provide full disclosure. It would be sad if an agency or strategist is gambling or taking a calculation: Either that mainstream news organizations no longer do this kind of investigative reporting or, even if they do publish a "money trail" article, no one cares.
The CA electorate - and the public relations profession - will be better off with full disclosure.
The health care debate has cast attention on deception and "front groups" created by the health care, insurance or pharmaceutical industries. A prominent public relations executive detailed at the 2009 PRSA conference why he left a cushy insurance industry job for this reason.
The next ethical spotlight could very well be cast in California in 2010.
California water wars are notorious. As soon as a drop falls from the skies and lands in the Golden State (as well as other Western states), it is "game on" for control.
California is "water rich" in the north and "people rich" in the south. Hence, the need to build canals to send water hundreds of miles from mountains and rivers to population centers. The most notable skirmish is the city of Los Angeles' epic takeover of Owens Valley water rights (as portrayed in "Chinatown").
Numerous books have been written about how various parties - from the state's large farming concerns to urban water agencies to well-organized environmental groups - wage intense, high-priced battles over this precious resource. I once worked for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which was created to build and manage a 200+ mile pipeline to transport water from the Colorado River to one of the largest populations in the world.
This year, California's lawmakers passed a series of monumental bills designed to protect the major faucet in our our massive water system - the Delta.
This was big. This was huge. It's been more than 30 years since acts of similar magnitude were accomplished.
Passage came after major political battles. I mean, major political battles. This column can't adequately summarize the extent of these multiple negotiations except to say that anytime you mix legal rights (like property rights), the country's biggest agriculture concerns, some of the most cunning environmental groups, millionaires, lawyers, lobbyists, the governor, public affairs strategists - each with their own agenda to carry - it is, well, manic and complicated. Trades and favors are exchanged in mostly painful ways.
California's water picture involves a mix of public relations, public affairs and lobbying. And, money. Water is perhaps one of the most complex issues in California.
Given the stakes, many public relations and public affairs firms in CA have been called upon to develop and implement various campaigns.
Now comes an article from an independent news organization about "front groups" apparently created and managed by public affairs firms or similar interests. A few "Friends of the.." popped up in the latest CA water battle. This is old stuff in California. With this state's predisposition for legislation through ballot initiative, we've seen these "Friends of..." or "Citizens for...." groups suddenly emerge to support their side of the issue. Heck, voters in California will see four or five "firefighter" organizations endorsing ballot measures or candidates. Firefighters consistently earn the most trust among citizens, so their endorsements are continually sought. But it's now difficult to figure out which firefighter group to follow.
While not new, front groups can pose issues in terms of public disclosure or creating public confusion. The Public Relations Society of America has guidelines, ethical standards and periodic bulletins that practitioners should follow when conducting business on behalf of a client, company or organization.
One thing should be clear: A public affairs firm or public relations agency is best suited to develop and manage an issues campaign.
In most cases, a firm is hired by an existing organization and there is no question whose side is being promoted. But in cases where multiple entities or individuals have a "case" to make and no organization exists, a "Friends of.." group is created. Or, call them "front groups." Now comes the tricky part in terms of disclosure - and the source of the recent news examination as to who funds these groups and their true intentions.
"Pop-up" groups that don't fully disclose their financial supporters or intentions cast an unwanted negative shadow over the other organizations that do disclose. They also can "muddy the waters" in a legitimate debate of the issues.
As the media director for a CA ballot initiative in the 1990s, I made it clear who I represented and their financial support. Once I disclosed this with reporters and editorial boards (and disclosure was made upfront), I was able to have a better discussion of the issue with news organizations. I believe our honesty - combined with a well crafted campaign - earned us points at the polls.
As 2010 approaches in California, we now brace for more "pop-up"groups to form in the debate over an $11 billion bond measure to fund major water projects in the state. Yes, I said "$11 billion." On the ballot in November 2010.
This is the final piece of the massive battle over how to fix the state's water system. With this kind of money at stake, it's easy to conclude that my public affairs colleagues will be gainfully employed next year.
Already, we have seen some groups forming their opposition to the measure, or using the bond issue to redirect public debate toward their issues. Strategies are being formed. Money collecting has begun to pay for advertisements and public affairs strategists.
Confusion is ahead. Scare tactics are inevitable.
The question relevant to the public relations profession and the hundreds of public affairs professionals doing business in CA is whether all front groups and organizations provide full disclosure. It would be sad if an agency or strategist is gambling or taking a calculation: Either that mainstream news organizations no longer do this kind of investigative reporting or, even if they do publish a "money trail" article, no one cares.
The CA electorate - and the public relations profession - will be better off with full disclosure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)