Chester
Burger, APR, Fellow PRSA, is the founder and former president
of Chester Burger & Co., Inc., a New York management-consulting
firm serving corporate public relations departments and public
relations agencies. Burger formerly was national manager of
CBS Television News.
PRSA
gave him its highest award, the Gold Anvil, and the PRSA Counselors
Academy designated him "The
Counselors' Counselor" and
its first Life Member. The United States Marine Corps awarded
him its first Drew Middleton Public Affairs Award for Distinguished
Service. He is the author of six books on management.
You
have honored me by choosing me to recall the leadership of Vern
Schranz. Mr. Schranz and Ball Corporation early recognized the
impact of public opinion on corporations and in over 25 years
with Ball, he helped management earn the understanding and support
of public opinion.
Your
invitation has caused me to recall some of my own experiences
trying to understand public opinion during
the last 40 years. Today,
I want to try to identify some of the lessons I have learned
about how to influence public opinion. Allow me first to set
the scene,
so that you'll know the period in which my own outlook was developed.
I
entered college in 1938. It was a difficult time. Not only
was my family poor, but most everyone's family was poor. Unemployment
was everywhere. Within two years, we would be evicted from
our
home because my father couldn't meet the monthly payments on
a
small mortgage.
War
was on the horizon. Nazi Germany was rearming. Spain was aflame
from Nazi bombings. In my own city, American
citizens
in Nazi uniforms
and storm troop boots were spending their Saturday morning
beating up Jewish shopkeepers on East 86th Street in Manhattan.
In this
setting I has absolutely no idea of what career path I should
follow. Perhaps your problem is choosing a life direction
is no easier
in 1983 than it was for me in 1938.
At
that time, there were virtually no jobs. There was the earliest
beginning of a national
defense program. I had a
friend who
worked in a machine shop. To prepare me for a job interview,
he helped
me to memorize some of the terms a machinist should know.
I tried to bluff my way into a job. Unsuccessfully. If
you have
looked
in vain for an appropriate job, you may be able to imagine
my desperation and that of others in similar straits.
And
when I finally got my first job, as an office boy, it was with
a predominantly Jewish law firm. Most companies
in those
days wouldn't
hire Catholics. Utilities wouldn't hire Italians. And
practically nobody would hire Blacks, or Negroes, as they were
known
in those days.
Recalling
my own experiences, I believe that all the pro-employer communications
in the world couldn't
have
overcome the
reality of racism and religious bias in hiring. It
was wrong. It
was offensive to ethics and morality. Yet America-not
only business,
but also
labor unions, the churches and colleges lived with
it, if not happily, certainly willingly accepting it with
passivity. As
Edmund Burke
said, "The only thing necessary for the for the
triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Many
good men did nothing. Public relations closed its eyes.
Probably it was just as well.
Public relations activity or communications can't overcome
what is inherently wrong. It shouldn't try.
Today,
when I see organizations permitting sexist bias, or racial
and religious discrimination out of indifference
or
outright
bias, I believe that although it may be a long time
in coming, there
will indeed be a day of reckoning for those responsible.
"Public
relations activity or communications can't overcome what
is inherently wrong. It shouldn't try."
|
This
includes public relations itself. Since we are one of the last
almost lily white professions in
America, I believe
that
our day of judgment will come when our employers
no longer
accept our
claim that we can help them to communicate effectively
with employees and people in our plant communities.
In most corporations,
the
body of employees represents a more accurate cross-section
of the America of 1983 in its racial and ethnic
diversity than we
do in
public relations.
Back
in my college days, we asked ourselves who and what was the
cause of unemployment, racism
and religious
hatred?
One
group asserted
that it had the answer, with a certainty that
now seems frightening in its intensity and
its vehemence.
This
group said the cause
was capitalism and the capitalists. The solution
was communism, communism
as it was being developed in the Soviet Union
under Comrade Stalin. Only communism could
eliminate poverty, racism
and unemployment,
and indeed that was, we were told, exactly
what was being done in the USSR.
I
believed much of this propaganda, as did, to some degree, many
of my fellow students
and many
other
Americans. Hard to believe
in 1983, but nonetheless true. In the convoluted
logic of the Left, it was not Hitler who
threatened war;
it
was Franklin
Roosevelt. It was not capitalism that offered
a future for us; it was socialism
Soviet style. It was not American democracy
that offered the
possibility
of ending racism, but Soviet democracy.
Endlessly,
over the years, my mind has relived those years and my own
naivete, and wondered
what lessons
could be
drawn from
them that might have relevance to today.
The
conclusion I've drawn is that the most critical period of our
intellectual, political
and social
development is the college
years
when we first emerge from the confines
of our home environment
and become aware of the larger world
around us. This is the period when we leave home
for the
first time,
when
we become
more conscious
of our future lives and our careers and
wonder what they will and should be,
and what we
can do about
them. Of
course, our
attitudes
at this point are strongly influenced
by our home environment, by our families. "As
the twig is bent, so the tree inclines."
But
college is the time and the place when
our attitudes form and our thoughts
break
out to
larger horizons.
The attitudes we develop
in college years remain with us for
the rest of our lives, to be changed only
by the most
powerful
experiences,
whether real
or
psychological.
Yet
the college years are precisely the period when young people
lack first-hand
contact
with the corporate
America
in which
many will spend much of their productive
years. Understandably, they
are preoccupied with the demands
of their
academic work. They are being introduced
to the culture
and the history
of the
world. They
are learning the physical sciences.
Unless they happen to be studying
engineering, they probably
aren't
studying economics.
And unless
they are seeking an M.B.A., they
probably are learning little or nothing about
the functioning
of our
economy. Outside
of
the graduate
schools of business, their instructors
may know little more than they of
the factors that cause
our society
to function
as it
does, for better or worse. All that
the
professors
know, for the most
part, is, as Will Rogers put it,
what they read in the newspapers.
In
those distant years neither I, nor my fellow students, nor my
professors
knew
anything at
all about the
reality of business.
We, too, only knew what we read
in newspapers. It was one thing to read
about it. But
we had never been in
a factory.
We knew
no
one who had. Nor had the professors.
Accordingly, we were perfectly
willing to believe all
the propaganda of the
Left that businessmen
were greedy and bigoted, uncaring
Philistines.
It
was
quite inconceivable to me that
circumstances and the accidents
of fate would someday
place me near the center of the
business community, to discover for myself
how wrong those beliefs
were. So
ever since, it
has seemed to me highly desirable
that the business community exposes
itself personally to young people
and
to college students, especially.
Not to propagandize
about
free enterprise
or the so-called "glories
of capitalism," but simply
to answer their questions, to stimulate
their interest, and
to present reality. Junior Achievement
(aimed at secondary schools) is
one
modest version
of the type of activity
I have in mind.
This
segment of our national population, the young
people, deserves more
attention than
it is receiving
from professional
communicators.
Whether we want to discourage
people from smoking, or to encourage them
to take up
careers in
science and technology,
or to prefer
Wheaties over Corn Flakes, or
to understand the advantages or disadvantages
of
labor unions, we should be considering
and strategizing
how
we can open an honest dialogue
with young
people. The return
on investment will be slow in
coming, but I believe
it will be enduring.
It
is strange that so little activity of this type exists.
I understand
why. Businessmen
have lives
of their own,
activities of their own,
pressures of their own. Either
they lack the
time to seek out opportunities
for dialogue, or they
have higher
priorities.
I
believe companies
should pay more attention to
this problem.
I
am a great believer in reality and substance, more than in
image and presentation.
Like
many people
who grew up
in the
years after
the passage of the National
Labor Relations Act, when
the powerful
industrial unions
were taking
form, I
believed in the nobility
of Labor's cause, and its
claim to be fighting for social justice.
I
believed, for instance the union horror stories
about "speedup" on
the assembly lines. From
Walter Reuther's era to
the General Motors strikes
at
the Lordstown, Ohio plant
in the 70s, my image of
an automotive assembly
line
had been formed by union
propaganda. It
was reinforced by that
hilarious sequence showing
Charlie
Chaplin in a frenzy on
the assemble line in "Modern
Times." I
had never been in an automotive
factory. How could I have
known reality differed?
Then
one day a few years ago,
I visited the River
Rouge plant
of
Ford, and
saw it for
myself. What
a surprise!
It wasn't
what I
expected. Some workers
were lounging with cigarettes
and coffee. Along
the conveyor
came a car.
The power tools
were hanging
in front of each worker
at
exactly the right height.
A little push
and in went the screws.
Then back to coffee.
One man went
back to
reading his magazine.
Right in
front of
my eyes
there was
no "speedup." Boredom,
yes, but not "speedup." If
the UAW had succeeded
in slowing the production
line,
there would have been
still
more boredom.
It
wasn't at all as the UAW described.
And I
thought to myself that
if I had got into
a bargaining
fight
with unions,
I'd
invite the public to
see
for itself what working
conditions
really
were like. Most of
the union claims would
collapse in the face
of reality.
To
generalize from this specific experience,
I've observed
that seeing for yourself
is most persuasive.
Much more
so than words,
photos or videotapes
aren't as good as
first hand viewing.
But
they are
more
persuasive than words.
Reality
is a powerful teacher. Companies ought o let those
whose opinions
are important to
it see
for themselves.
Every company,
of course, flies
security analysts
out to see
the new factory.
But I believe much
more should be
done with other
groups
of the general
public
to let
them see
for themselves
what American
industry
is like and how
it meets the needs of
the nation.
Too
often, we accuse the media, especially
television,
of unfairness
and abuse
of power. All
through the years, I've
heard charges
and seen evidence
of unfairness.
But I've
come to believe
that very often,
we get what we
deserve in
life,
and that to a
considerable degree, the business
community
deserves
what criticism
it receives.
When Kuhn Loeb, the
investment Wall
Street
banking firm,
merged some years ago
with Lehman Brothers,
the
president
was asked about
layoffs.
"When
you have redundancies," he said, "you get rid of
the redundancies." They're
not human beings;
they're "redundancies." That
expression
reveals indifference
to human considerations
and brings
deserved
criticism to
all businesses.
So
I've learned
not to blame
the media
for unfairness
unless they
have really
been unfair.
If business
hasn't divulged
the facts,
or if business
has acted
or spoken insensitively,
then
it had better
listen to
its public
relations
professionals and
change
its ways
instead of
complaining
about
media bias.
I
don't want to give you
the impression
that my
public
relations philosophy
is based
primarily
on the
experiences of my youth.
Over the
years,
both as the head
of
the largest
public
relations firms, and
for
19
years as
head
of management
communications
consulting
firm, I've
studied
hundreds
perhaps
several thousand
public
relations programs.
Most of
them have
seemed
to me a waste
of time
money and
effort.
Most of
them have been
trivial
or inconsequential
or irrelevant
to reality,
to the
problems of the corporation
or society.
From
this
exposure, I've observed
a distinguishing
characteristic
of those
that
seemed to me most
effective.
The
best
public relations
programs
harmonize
corporate
self-interest
with
the public's
interest.
The
Alliance
of
American
Insurers,
for
example,
has consistently
used
creative programs
to
promote
public
safety
in
the interest
of the
insurance
industry.
What
saves
lives
and
avoids automotive
accidents,
for'
example,
serves
the
public interest
and
also cuts
costs
for
the
insurers. By way
of
example, the Alliance
is
urging drivers
who
have
CB
radios to report
to
the highway
patrol
when
they
see
a car
being
driven
in
an erratic
and
possibly unsafe
manner.
That
is
a sound
public
relations — serving
the
public
interest
as
it
serves
the
industry's
self
interest.
Another
lesson
I've
learned
is
that
while
service
in
the
public
interest
makes
more
friends
for
a
company than
does
simple
corporate
self-interest,
it's
nevertheless
desirable
for
a
corporation to
specify
its
corporate
self
interest
to
establish
credibility.
In
one
recent
case,
a
company
seeking
a
tax benefit
for
a
local
plant
emphasized
that
it
would
increase
corporate
profits
and
thus
enable
the
company
to
expand
the
factory
and
create
additional
jobs.
The
admission
of
increased
profits
gave
the
ring
of
credibility
to
the
promise
of
more
jobs.
The
public
interest
concerns
the
public
more
than
does
corporate
self-interest.
But
emphasizing
the
private
self-interest
of
the
audience
seems
even
more
powerful
still.
That
lesson
is
important.
Few
people act
to advance
the public
interest, or
the common
good, whatever
that may
be. They
work to
advance their
self-interest, or
at least,
their self-interest
as they
perceive it,
or as
their leaders
present it
to them.
"The
best public relations programs harmonize corporate self-interest
with the public's interest."
|
Altruism
exists, yes
indeed, but
I wouldn't
want to
base a
major campaign
on the
hope that
it will
show itself.
The more
frequently used
technique is
to present
people's self-interest
as the
public interest.
For example,
some organizations
of the
aged have
done this.
They conducted
a public
relations program
on the
basis that
any attempt
to cut
back on
Social Security
benefits is
an attempt
to cut
back on
benefits they
themselves have
already paid
for. The
reality is
somewhat different.
Their public
relations materials
don't state
that people
who retire
at age
65, who
have paid
maximum social
security taxes
right along
with a
spouse who
doesn't work
outside the
home, will
receive benefits
equal to
his or
her total
contributions over
the years
they worked,
in just
11 months
after retirement.
This
isn't to
discuss the
real needs
of the
aged. It's
to discuss
the manipulation
and perceptions
of an
important public
issue. It's
to question
whether broad
public opinion
has been
formed on
the basis
of distorted
information.
There
are winners
and losers
in that
set of
facts about
Social Security,
as the
public understands
it. The
winners are
those drawing
benefits many
times what
they paid
in, for
more years
than anyone
at the
time the
law was
passed thought
they would
live. The
winners are
the public
officials who
were elected
on the
promise they'd
preserve those
benefits.
The
losers are
those who
are paying
for those
benefits through
salary taxes.
The losers
are those
that will
never collect
the hoped-for
benefits because
the money
won't be
there.
Now
you haven't
heard the
issue presented
quite that
way. Oh,
no! It
is presented
as a
matter of
fairness and
respect for
the contributions
of our
fathers and
mothers, in
other words,
in our
interest. The
senior citizens
have proven
their mastery
of the
techniques of
persuasion in
our democratic
society. Self-interest
has been
masked with
talk of
fairness, moral
responsibility and
the like.
Self-interest
is not
always evident.
The skilled
persuader presents
his or
her self-interest
in terms
of how
it serves
your interest.
But
people keep
trying and
keep hiring
public relations
people to
present their
case. Good
for the
counselors; bad
for the
advocates that
accomplish nothing
with their
money.
Another
lesson I've
learned is
that it's
so difficult
to communicate
anything at
all, that
if you
don't express
yourself with
simplicity, you're
wasting your
time. I
saw one
management memo
that read, "In
response to inquires regarding the equipment,
it is felt that there would be no detrimental
effect on the components comprising the
terminals
and/or station arrangement due to
daily and weekend powering off."
That
can be
translated, "It's safe to turn off
the equipment at night or over the weekend." How
many communicators haven't learned that
lesson? The problem seems to me has worsened
today
compared to 1938, when I first wrote
about
it. When people say that their home computer
is "user friendly," I rather
think they are "communications-confused," and
probably "digitally-delirious" as
well.
Other
experiences have
taught me
that you
can't communicate
persuasively about
an abstract
principle, like
the blessings
of competition
or free
enterprise or
dangers of
unionism. You
need specific
examples. For
example, the
environmentalists
weren't
getting very
far until
an oil
slick. That
changed abstraction
into reality.
Wall Street
didn't fully
appreciate IBM's
marketing skill
until brokerage
houses saw
their employees
buying IBM
personal computers
for themselves,
at their
own expense. I
have also
learned that
it takes
a very
long time
to implant
a new
idea. Indeed,
the old
saying is
true, "Just when the client
is beginning to tire of the advertising
message is about the time the public
is just beginning to notice it." Look
how many years it's taken for
the
proven association between cigarette
smoking
and cancer to penetrate mass
consciousness
and to influence our individual
behavior. When you want to influence
public opinion
or individual behavior, you can't
hurry things along.
To
everything there
is a
season, and
a time
to every
purpose under
the heaven.
Some good
ideas fail
for the
reason that
public opinion
isn't yet
ready to
accept them.
On the
other hand,
when there
is an
idea whose
time has
come, no
power on
earth can
halt it.
Take for
example, the
breakup of
the Bell
Telephone System.
For 107
years, it
epitomized all
of the
best qualities
of the
nation's life.
It provided
a high
quality of
telephone service,
the finest
in the
world. The
boast was — and it was true-that
993 out of 1000 times — when
you picked up your telephone
to make a call, you'd receive
a dial
tone, meaning that a path
was
open
to connect your call within
three
seconds; in other words, by
the time the phone reached
your ear. Bell provided a
very
low-cost service. On the average,
a factory worker would
need to work one hour and
20
minutes to pay his monthly telephone
service. The lowest
cost in the world, and Bell
displayed
a high degree of social responsibility.
It achieved
its goal, what Theodore Vail,
the founder, called universal
telephone service. That meant
a service so inexpensive that
everyone could afford it.
But
Bell's success
became its
failure. Politicians
slowly recognized
that the
public didn't
like big
companies,
and
especially they
didn't like
monopolies.
Never
mind that
the service
has been
good. People
don't like
to be
forced to
do anything.
And if
you didn't
like dealing
with Bell,
who else
could you
go to?
Politicians — I
don't use the word in a pejorative
sense-are turned to public
opinion more closely than
are businessmen. Politicians
are always campaigning for
reelection. They don't have
the long-term
perspective of businessmen
who must worry about survival
in the long pull.
Gradually,
over the
years, public
figures
in
the legislative,
executive
and
judicial departments
of governments
at all
levels came
to believe
that the
Bell System
must be
smashed.
It
hardly makes
sense to
suggest that
the political
leaders
misjudged
public opinion,
because the
voters reelected
them instead
of turning
against
them
in fury.
The
Bell
System
had built
what I
believe
was
the most
professional,
the
finest,
and
certainly
the
largest
public
relations
organization
in the
United
States.
It planned
skillfully;
it
communicated
honestly
and openly.
Its effectiveness
was close
to optimum.
And yet
it failed,
and 51
days
from
today,
the
Bell System
will
finally
| 
