One Question, One Image March 18, 2018

By Edward M. Bury, APR (aka the PRDude)

This headline from last week certainly jumped off the page, so to say, for me and perhaps a million or so other Chicagoans who care about the future of the city:

Amazon HQ2 search team visiting Chicago March 21-22

As noted in the accompanying article published by Crain’s Chicago Business, Chicago city officials are keeping the visit somewhat hush-hush, as requested by the folks from Amazon, who are considering my fair city along with 19 others for its “second headquarters.”

The under-construction Academic and Residential complex on the UIC campus.

As noted in this post from November of last year, I’m a solid supporter of Chicago gaining this once-in-a-generation corporate prize. I even liked the Chicago is all in Facebook page dedicated to helping communicate civic boosterism towards the HQ2 competition. (And, for the record, I shared the above post from last year, but it has yet to be included.)

Given the projected number of permanent jobs (50,000), high salaries for new Amazon employees (average of $100,000), and residual economic benefits (who knows for sure, but it will be a lot), there’s no question winning the Amazon prize would be tremendous for Chicago. (Although many claim the purported $2.25 billion incentive package is way too steep.)

So on to today’s question. The image above reveals progress made on the new Academic and Residential Complex at the University of Illinois at Chicago.  (Full disclosure: I work at UIC.)

This $100 million development, which I observe daily when exiting the CTA Blue Line UIC/Halsted station, is rising at remarkable speed. It’s a tangible example what Chicago does very well: Build stuff.

Since its inception and evolution in the late 19th Century into a truly world-class city, Chicago has built more than just iconic structures. Chicago has built industries — food processing and manufacturing, transportation, supply chain logistics and others — that rival those any place on earth.

That’s why I want to ask:

Does Chicago really need to win the Amazon HQ2 to maintain its position in the world today?

Regardless of the low profile hoped for during the meetings between the city and Amazon this week, I’m confident there will be many, many projections on where the bid stands.

 

 

Advertisements

My Turn: Thoughts About Amazon and Chicago

By Edward M. Bury, APR (aka The PRDude)

For the past several weeks, one story has dominated business news here: Chicago’s efforts to lure online retail behemoth Amazon to build its “second headquarters” on a site in the city.

Led by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Governor Bruce Rauner and local business and civic leaders, Chicago has offered Amazon 10 potential sites — eight in the city and two in the suburbs — to consider for the proposed complex. Marketing messages have highlighted the city’s strong points, like central location with two international airports, world-class cultural and educational institutions, strong (well most of the time) infrastructure, vibrant neighborhoods (well, many but certainly not all), dynamic business community and many others.

Thankfully, I have not read any nonsense about the attraction of real deep dish pizza or Chicago style (hold the ketchup) hot dogs.

Although, I anticipate a continued barrage of business stories about the Amazon bid well into 2018, when Chicago will learn where it ranks among the 238 North American cities bidding for HQ2 and its proposed 50,000 employees.

A few weeks ago, the former CEO of the city’s chamber of commerce published a rather compelling “open letter” to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, offering several reasons why Chicago should land this so-called “once-in-a-generation” corporate and economic plum.

And, a few days ago, the Chicago Tribune published a news story announcing proposed plans by Chicago real estate concern Sterling Bay to offer Amazon naming for a stadium within the newly-designated Lincoln Works property on the North Side. Great idea, but I’m not sure what team would play games at the stadium since the city’s professional franchises already have homes.

So, now it’s this life-long Chicago resident’s opportunity to share some thoughts behind making Chicago Amazon’s HQ2.

Retail Legacy. Without question, Chicago can boast a retail history unparalleled in the nation. The mail-order industry, led by Sears & Roebuck and Montgomery Ward, was founded here and thrived for a century.  On a related note, the meatpacking industry was born and thrived here for decades. Chicago knows how to host groundbreaking commerce and industry.

Non-Profit Powerhouse. This fact often is lost when listing metropolitan Chicago’s economic and civic strengths: The size and scope of its non-profit and association organizations, some of the largest in the nation. As noted from this page on the Chicago Association Forum’s website, the region’s associations — some 1,600 total — contribute billions to the economy. Associations also function as advocates for culture and commerce, generate research and stimulate dialogue. This is a benefit other cities simply can’t match.

It’s Been Done Here Before. I won’t tread on that quote about dispensing with minuscule ideas. Yet its message rings true here in Chicago, which gave the world the first true skyscraper, which hosted an international exhibition two decades after a devastating fire, which nurtured and lost and rebuilt great industries, which emerged from many catastrophes still strong and ready to take on new challenges.

Amazon and other online retailers may be (and deservedly so) blamed for putting bricks and mortar retailers out of business. Montgomery Ward no longer exists, and Sears is facing challenges to remain profitable.

Should Mr. Bezos decide on Chicago as the next step for the online empire he created, I maintain the city would rise up to the challenge.  And, by the way, along with pizza and hot dogs, we have are home to Italian beef.

 

 

 

Hey Chicago Tribune: Let’s Clarify What Defines a “PR Nightmare”

By Edward M. Bury, APR (aka The PRDude)

Or on second thought, perhaps the subject of this post should be: “Hey Chicago Tribune: Please Comprehend the Difference Between Public Relations and Media Exposure Generated by News Reports of Bad Things Happening to People, Companies or Brands.”

Chicago_Tribune_LogoWell, this alternative is a trifle wordy and probably would not rank too well with the search engines. So, I’ll stick to the title above.

Here’s the crux behind today’s commentary: The lead story of the Sunday, December 27, Chicago Tribune Business section centered on news from 2015 that led to negative publicity for some of the largest and most recognizable companies and individuals in America.

The story headline: “2015’s PR Nightmares.”

I beg to differ.  The 12 examples cited chronicles news reports of bad things that happened to businesses and people, not examples of poor execution of strategies or tactics by public relations counsel during a crisis or disruption of business.

PR NighmareYou’re probably familiar with stories cited: Findings that Volkswagen engineers developed software to cheat emission standards, the arrest of longtime Subway spokesperson Jared Fogel on child pornography charges, reports of an unsavory work environment at online retail giant Amazon, and the nine others.

Note: Three of the 12 examples put the spotlight on Chicago — Blackhawks star Patrick Kane (who was embroiled in rape allegations), Mayor Rahm Emanuel, (who’s facing continued scrutiny resulting from the Laquan McDonald shooting by police) and Wrigley Field (where promised facility improvements were not delivered on opening day).

Yes, these stories caused significant damage to reputations and possibly changed perceptions. But they were not the result of lousy public relations work, which is how many readers might interpret the article. From another perspective, effective public relations counsel could not prevent — in most cases — these “nightmares” from happening.

(An aside: One of the year’s “dirty PR dozen” examples is Martin Shkreli, the recently arrested pharmaceutical executive featured in this PRDude post from September 29 on the practice of doxing.)

It should be pointed out that the introduction to the Tribune article, written by Greg Trotter, states “there were some clear winners and losers among the worst PR disasters of 2015.” I’ll interpret that as meaning strategists were successful on some occasions on helping to mitigate the fallout of a crisis.

Another point of contention centers on the research used to compile this “survey of the worst of the worst in this year’s brand name fails,” as stated in the article sub headline.

The chief source for Mr. Trotter’s report was Tim Caulkins, clinical professor of marketing at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.  I’m not questioning Professor Caulkins’ credentials, but perhaps an academic professional who teaches public relations would have been a better choice. And, it would have been prudent to seek more than one opinion in order to have a true “survey.”

Finally, throughout the article (and in the headline), “public relations” is not mentioned, only “PR.” Shouldn’t a formal reference be made to the practice before using the abbreviation? I think so.

Public relations and marketing are both communications disciplines — but they clearly are different.  Please click on the respective links to learn the difference.

Finally some disclosures:

  1. We subscribe to the daily delivery of the Chicago Tribune print edition, and I relish my time reading the city’s broadsheet.
  2. I could not find a link on the newspaper’s website to the “PR Nightmare” article, so I included a link obtained through my subscription.

There. I feel better and will sleep well tonight. Not anticipating any nightmares — PR or otherwise.