I wish more of us in this field were engineers. I'm certainly not but as a result of working closely with some of the best technology companies in the world, I've been able to interact with a lot of engineers -- and communications pros that could have been engineers. To be an engineer requires a high aptitude for algebra, calculus, and physics. You need to have a brain that arranges, anticipates, and calculates the tangible and intangible interrelationship between values, forces, and unknowns.

Those would be extraordinarily valuable skills in our field given the complexity of networks of stakeholders and the need to anticipate game-changing new forces that affect an organization and its success (competition, technology, globalization).

One of the most powerful concepts that engineers adhere to is systems thinking. Systems thinking is understanding how different elements of an ecosystem influence one another. In nature it can be how plants and animals interact in the food chain, in photosynthesis and decomposition. In engineering it can be how energy and materials interact to support a bridge or building. 

In our field, systems thinking can be a powerful source of thinking and strategy as companies and brands seek to build relationship capital across an ecosystem of stakeholders. Why? As you know, more than ever, building relationship capital isn't about one-way communication to consumers, business partners, influencers, analysts, activists, and other communities. It's about peer-to-peer networks, identifying mutual benefits, evaluating risk, determining friction and resistance, and other factors and forces in the ecosystem. Done well, our discipline isn't linear or simple anymore. It's complex and requires an understanding of interdependent players and variables.  

So next time you're searching for a new hire, consider an engineer or at least someone with an engineer's mind.

Rob Flaherty is senior partner and president at Ketchum

The most interesting line in a certain famous golfer's appearance 10 days ago was when he noted that his wife told him that his "real apology to her will not come in the form of words; it will come from my behavior over time."  

In our very transparent world, all that matters is action, policy, and behavior. A brand is what a brand does, not what it says. I felt this ring true while watching the Olympics over the past week. Some athletes came into the games with a lot of hype, but all that really mattered was how they behaved at the games and whether they could deliver a medal-winning performance.

So if reputation is now right where it should be -- reality based -- what is our communications-centric profession doing about it? Is the programming for our brands, products, services, and companies still primarily an exercise in carefully crafting messages and creatively driving visibility? Do we expend an equal amount of energy and focus on action? Hopefully most of us do. But here's a higher bar: do we ask if the company or client organization can actually deliver what we're being asked to amplify? When was the last time that you saw an outline of a recommendation that went like this: situation analysis, objectives, due diligence to check facts, strategies, tactics, measurement? 

I'm surprised there are still companies that separate responsibility for the creative communication of the brand message from responsibility for the delivery of the brand experience. That's still left to operations, customer service, the call center, and front-line employees. 

I believe those of us in PR should be advocates of a more progressive definition of brand marketing, in which the function is as interested in keeping the brand promise as it is in making the promise.

At the Copenhagen Summit in December, policymakers, celebrities, and CEOs filled the hotels; 200-plus global media gathered in one location; 190 heads of state flew into one airport; investors and philanthropists littered the restaurants; more than 20,000 youth prepared for mass demonstrations. Word-of-mouth was rife.

The PR lesson learned from the Summit was a big one: if you want to elevate your green platform, commit to a multi-stakeholder strategy.  I saw clear winners and losers. It was a simple case of “don't put all your eggs in one basket.” The firms that did - whose only engagement comprised of sending their CEO to the Danish government-backed conference eight months prior - lost.  The best of the mediocre media coverage was dominated by activist headlines claiming ‘Corporate sabotage of climate'. Whereas the firms that offered up “a little something for everyone” won.

“A little something for everyone” looked like this:

• Striking, thought-provoking, and well-placed exhibits and ads in the Copenhagen airport.
• Mini-ads on hotel TV.
• Billboard sponsorship of public-facing climate campaigns (‘Hopenhagen' and ‘Seal the Deal').
•  Major media announcements and press conferences within the conference.
• Campaign partnerships and presence with key influencers, like NGOs, trade associations, and celebrities.
• Dinners and networking events with policymakers, NGOs, and other C-suite.

Applying these lessons, I now respond to a client's request for media recognition for a green initiative by asking:

• How does this announcement fit into what reporters are writing on this quarter?
• How can we build a total stakeholder engagement program to support your overall green efforts?

By taking this holistic approach, it helps to ensure a better understanding of the PR challenge and sets a more realistic baseline for client expectations. Besides, offering “a little something for everyone” pays off in life, too.

Mark Grundy is a VP in Edelman's CSR practice

I spent a lot of time last fall with multiple domestic and international clients who wished to attend the Copenhagen Climate Summit for media opportunities. Like many others attendees, afterwards I was exhausted, and basically sick of climate change. If I was sick of it, then how must the media be feeling?

To gauge the level of green fatigue, I did some quick research of 160 media outlets. I asked wires, top-tiers, bloggers, and broadcasters worldwide two questions:

1)      Is there green fatigue among your editors?

2)      Which topics of interest will you cover in the first two quarters of 2010?

With a healthy 15% response rate, I analyzed the data quantitatively, as well as qualitatively. The following points highlight key conclusions:

• Green fatigue is not a relevant problem for a majority of reporters who responded. While this is heartening, it is also important to note that a large portion of the reporters who were surveyed work exclusively for environmental/energy/green based publications or departments. 

• Europe-based reporters were much more likely to report noticing green fatigue among their editors than their American counterparts.  

• An increased emphasis on the ‘human-interest' side of green topics was noted internationally.  While Copenhagen and domestic climate change policy continue to be strong issues, writers reported a shift to the ‘who' rather than the ‘what', both in looking at solutions to environmental problems and its effects on the average person. 

•  Biodiversity is a burgeoning trend. Several writers labeled 2010 as “the year of biodiversity” and expressed strong interest in writing stories related to the topic. 

•  Post-Copenhagen issues were of particular interest to many reporters. Issues relating to the fallout from the summit include annexing responsibilities, US-China climate relations, deforestation, and Copenhagen's effects on global oil demand, domestic policies, and the average consumer.

Mark Grundy is a VP in Edelman's CSR practice

Whether it is packaging, water, green buildings, carbon footprints, or emission reduction, I am always surprised by the level of disconnect between clients' aspirations for their policy initiatives and the media's appetite. I'm sure this question is familiar to us all: “We are launching our carbon reduction target: 20% by 2020. Can we get top-tier coverage?”

Dealing with this challenge since the green marketing frenzy of 2007, I have a lot of firsthand experience in trying to satisfy often unrealistic expectations. In most cases the outcome is usually a couple of pickups in green trade magazines and blogs, and maybe a lucky hit in the top-tiers, followed by an uncomfortable conversation with the client about why it didn't make front page of The New York Times.

So, how can we help corporate clients get recognition for their green efforts with media (and other stakeholders)? The winning formula is a total stakeholder engagement program: a combined media and stakeholder program, which provides “a little something for every audience” – the technology guys, the NGOs, the consumer, and, of course, the media.

So, what about the media? The first question should be, what do they want? Not, what does my client want to tell them? We all know the “sweet spot” between media wishes and client wants when we hit it and get a story. But with two full years of green behind us, slashed environmental editorials, and a disastrously over-saturated Copenhagen summit in December, is there an appetite for green stories?

Next, I will share some primary research I did last month with 160 top-tier broadcast and print media from around the world that cover green. Not only does it show little green fatigue, it also offers up the key topics that journalists want to write about over the next three months.

Mark Grundy is a VP in Edelman's CSR practice

Each week, PRWeekus.com features a guest blogger on its "Insider" blog. Next week's blogger is Mark Grundy, VP in Edelman's CSR practice in New York.

Every so often events come along that make those of us who make a living predicting, analyzing, and helping others determine how to learn from similar lessons, take notice. Here's a review of three recent events and the conflicting conventional wisdom they support:

1. Tiger Woods: Act quickly to frame the story

This strategy is often the most difficult to grasp in the moment, particularly when dealing with a highly personal and embarrassing problem. But speaking quickly allows you to better frame the discussion, before the narrative is too far gone and largely unchangeable. Tiger's delayed disclosure cost him credibility and empowered others to structure this entire event on their terms, without any context from Tiger himself. Tiger speaks publicly for the first time this Friday. Too little too late? Probably, but Americans still love apologies and redemption. 

2. Toyota: Know all the facts before you respond

Toyota's recall of the Prius and other cars is an example of the consequences of employing the drip philosophy of crisis management. Speculation was rampant, but the company was reluctant to initiate the recall. The public alleges Toyota moved too slowly, as they had in earlier recalls. Now they face reputation and financial damage, and government and regulatory intrusion in their business. Could the magnitude of the reputation problem have been mitigated?

3. David Paterson: Acting too quickly can harm you

The New York Times has been alluding to a potential story on about New York governor, David Paterson's personal life for weeks. The speculation included reports that Paterson's resignation was in the works. Late last week, in an attempt to preempt the Times, Gov. Paterson tried to regain ownership of the narrative. By engaging a reporter (not from the Times) in a dialogue about the scandal, Paterson created more interest and intrigue.

Torod Neptune is SVP and global public affairs practice leader at Waggener Edstrom

Recent industry research shows that most companies place a premium on public affairs as a valuable business strategy and influencing function. However, while companies rank the capability's importance highly, there continues to be a startling lack of understanding of the practice and its business value, particularly in the context of the increasingly important role government is now playing in business.

A recent McKinsey & Company study, “How Business Interacts with Government,” shows that corporate executives view government primarily as a stakeholder; however, there is a lack of rigor in managing these relationships.

Two McKinsey data points:

• “Government is likelier to affect companies' economic value than any other group of stakeholders except customers, say executives in response to a new McKinsey survey.”
•  “A variety of government actions, in addition to laws and regulations, powerfully affect companies' finances, executives say. But executives also indicate that companies' processes to manage their relationships with government are generally less robust than are the ones used to manage relationships with other stakeholders.”

A 2009  study conducted by trade magazine PA in Asia found that nearly 90% of consulting firm CEOs agreed that public affairs is still not fully understood as a practice in Asia, slightly higher than the percentage in the US. Additionally, the US Public Affairs Council has referenced public affairs as "the most important corporate function that nobody understands."

This indicates we have more to do to inform business executives of the strategic value of public affairs. In the day of financial services industry regulatory fighting, Toyota recalls, and the battle over healthcare reform; if any sizeable portion of the public questions the value and importance of public affairs, this perhaps says more about those of us who are practitioners in the space than it does about our business colleagues and clients.

Torod Neptune is SVP and global public affairs practice leader at Waggener Edstrom