Time to Add 'Value' to the Public Relations Definition Makeover

This week the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) launched an initiative to find a new definition for Public Relations. One that reflects the changing role of PR practitioners in today’s digital media environment. A statement that improves on the 1982 definition that still endures: 'Helping an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other'.

It’s time for the makeover. Not just because today’s digital platforms have transformed how we communicate. We’re already years into that revolution.

It’s time because PR has an image problem. Its 'value' is poorly understood. And that’s largely our fault. We’re simply not good at properly defining PR’s essential role in growing businesses. Neither do we adequately promote its contribution to the bottom line. This, when sharp messaging, relevant content and clever deployment of media channels are more imperative than ever.

Remarkably, while we make ‘value’ the centerpiece of client position statements, we rarely do it for ourselves. We talk a lot about ‘what we do’ as PR practitioners. And if we speak of our value at all it’s usually in the context of generating ink. But how often do we link our strategies to ‘what we enable’? The high-value business outcomes that we help engineer. Like capturing the attention of an investor, inspiring a customer to engage, or stabilizing stock-price volatility during a corporate crisis. We probably don’t connect the strategy with the result as often as we should.

That’s why value must shine in the new PR definition.

And now is a good time to do this. While today’s social media revolution prompted the PRSA to re-define our discipline, the ‘value’ fundamentals are more important than ever. PR draws talented people: creative thinkers, smart business strategists and terrific writers, among others. In-house or out-sourced, their outstanding efforts help organizations grow and succeed.

It’s time for that value to be reflected in the new statement.

Steve Jobs: 'American Spirit' Personified

Much is being written today about Steve Jobs the tech titan, visionary and creative genius. Accolades heard often during his life and ones he undoubtedly expected to populate his obituaries.

But I wonder if he knew how profoundly he influenced legions of aspiring entrepreneurs in large cities and small towns across the world. Was he aware that he inspired many of the foreign-born individuals who today lead more than half of Silicon Valley's technology companies?

I hope he was.

He challenged a generation to ‘think different’. At first just a clever ad slogan. Later a term that captured the essence of what many immigrants define as the ‘American Spirit’. That is the intangible characteristics that make Silicon Valley an irresistible draw for the foreign-born entrepreneur. Like the audacity to turn the impossible into the possible and then the probable. The vision to see beyond the horizon. The curiosity to ask ‘why not’ instead of ‘why’. The confidence to take risks. The determination to invent and build on a shoe-string. The good humor to motivate others. The generosity to mentor the newbies. The boldness to ignite competition. And in times of failure, the perseverence and energy to start over again.

Few embodied the spirit quite like Steve Jobs. He wasn’t the first and he won’t be the last. But for my generation he was the role model for the 'extreme entrepreneur'. And for many of us who grew up abroad, he epitomized the optimistic can-do mentality that we associated with America.

Thank you, Steve for inspiring the world with your American Spirit. May your call to ‘think different’ motivate future-generation entrepreneurs to invent, create and build.

Boosting Global Economies Through Local Technology Innovation Centers

Last month, the well-known complex at 3000 Sand Hill Road welcomed its newest tenant: The Russian Innovation Center. Its charter is to promote high-tech partnerships and scientific cooperation between Russian and American companies, venture capital firms, and academic and scientific institutions.

The Russians are the latest to plant an Innovation Center in the region. Like others before them, they recognized that Silicon Valley is more than just the Capital of Capital. It’s a unique mindset that inspires entrepreneurs to think big and consider the impossible possible. For the Russians especially, it’s a place that has long produced brilliant technology, often enabled by strong threads of Russian DNA.

With this official channel, young Russian entrepreneurs can more easily tap into an ecosystem that’s wired to create world-class tech companies.

There’s plenty of precedent to validate the Russians’ move. Many Irish companies can trace their early US market success to the incubation services provided by Government agency, Enterprise Ireland [EI]. At EI’s Silicon Valley offices, Irish tech executives get space and practical support, along with access to high-profile local executives who can influence growth for their embryonic businesses. And in San Jose last year, giving a further boost to Ireland-based entrepreneurs with US market ambitions, the Irish Technology Leadership Group launched the Irish Innovation Center.

Others are bound to follow. Foreign-championed Innovation Centers make good business sense and benefit more than just the entrepreneur. While the primary premise for most is to provide small companies with a speedy conduit to US investors, customers and other important constituents, the Centers also stimulate innovation and pump dollars into the local economy. Some entrepreneurs take up full-time residence. They listen, learn, connect, invent and build. Others travel back and forth as they grow their business, planting innovation seeds in their countries of origin.

And those seeds benefit the US in a big way. How? Because success for most entrepreneurs, especially those operating in small countries, depends on building an export-oriented business. Getting there requires a presence in high-growth markets like the US. This means creating jobs in those markets. For Irish entrepreneurs, this is a particular strength, as the 82,000 Americans working at 237 Ireland-based corporations would attest. Not surprisingly, some of the management talent in these Irish companies was nurtured in Silicon Valley. Now that same talent is influencing economic growth in both countries - from a tiny island.

As the Russians no doubt know, their Silicon Valley Innovation Center will do more than catalyze new opportunities for indigenous Russian businesses. It will also ignite a two-way investment flow that transcends nationality and benefits many.

Gen Y Innovators: Doing More with Less

This month, MIT's prestigious magazine, Technology Review, profiles its annual line-up of “35 Innovators Under 35”. The list reveals a kaleidoscope of nationalities. Entrepreneurial spirits as young as 24 working magic at America’s universities, national labs, corporations and start-ups. Their ambitions are audacious and their accomplishments dazzling. They’re re-programming cells to cure disease, engineering viruses to destroy bio-films, developing software to help communities in crisis, and powering electronics with human motions. And there's a strong philanthropic flair to their efforts.

The list is an inspiring reminder that the pool of next-generation scientists and technologists is deep and rich. And that America's global leadership profile continues to be defined by the quality of its ideas.

Equally inspiring is that in spite of dismal capital markets, the pace of innovation hasn’t changed. Thin funding and razor-tight budgets, notwithstanding, these young entrepreneurs continue to transport clever ideas out of the lab and into commercialization. Which means that most are doing more with less. Probably much less than many veteran entrepreneurs. Other than the intrapreneurs at Google and Microsoft, few on this list will likely benefit from the type of gigantic funding rounds that saturated the tech sector not so long ago. The $100M+ payouts to Silicon Valley clean-tech companies must seem like an oddity to the young inventors – unless they’re being courted by Better Place.

With their lean operating models and frugal business cultures, these star innovators have more to pass along than just brilliant ideas. In today’s start-up land “doing more with less” is an absolute imperative, not just to appease demanding VCs, but because the money simply isn’t there. According to the National Venture Capital Association, raising funds is tougher than ever for US VCs as investors abandon this traditional investment channel and pour money into emerging markets or other vehicles. In the second quarter of 2010, just $1.9 billion was raised by 38 VC funds – a 47% decline when compared to the first quarter which saw 38 funds raise $3.7 billion. Worse yet, it is the lowest by dollar commitment since the third quarter of 2003. Not surprisingly, the number of US venture firms is expected to decrease over the next 5 years. This means less money for start-ups.

But the gloomy VC data points are probably not top of mind for MIT’s humanitarian [innovator] of the year, Kenya-born David Kobia. Building an inventive way to mobilize communities in crisis was just the start for this former University of Alabama student. He’s got much bigger aspirations. He wants to grow Kenya’s economy by harnessing Nairobi’s burgeoning software talent. He tells individuals at his new innovation center in the East African city that it’s their duty to participate in the community by building their own business. I suspect he also told them they needed to do it on a shoe-string budget.

A master of doing more with less. And a tough act to follow.

Water: Ripe for Innovation

By the end of 2011, 10 million Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) “smart meters” will be deployed across the State of California. The meters will help consumers conserve energy and contain utility costs by providing real-time information on their gas and electricity use. The multi-phase meter roll-out began in 2006 and created new market opportunities for inventive hardware and software technologies. Today, approximately 300 million meters are deployed across the US.

But when it comes to water, we’re way behind. With just 70 million meters monitoring and measuring this vital resource, a similar “smart-grid for water” initiative is in its infancy. Yet there are virtually no investment dollars going into this sector. In fact, according to investors at SDForum’s recent Green and Clean event in Menlo Park, only 1% of VC dollars are being applied to start-ups with inventive water-related technologies and services.

Seems like a very low figure for a $400 billion industry.

It’s not like we don’t need to modernize the water industry. 36% of the world’s population lacks access to sanitation. That’s a crisis. In California, we’re fortunate to have access to clean water. So, according to the classic definition of a water crisis [i.e. withdrawal exceeds replenishment], we’re not in trouble. Yet. But few realize that the State’s water supply depends on an antiquated infrastructure with century-old pipes transporting water from north to south. Not surprisingly, with minimal upgrades in the last 100 years, this creaky system is at breaking point. Not only that, it hogs nearly 19% of California’s electricity, according to Bill Kocher from the City of Santa Cruz Water Department who spoke at the SDForum event.

This exposes myriad opportunities for entrepreneurs and technologies - not just for IT products like those that are enabling PG&E’s smart-grid initiative, but for purification, filtration and other often non-capital-intensive technologies that have long proven successful in sectors like life sciences and semiconductors.

But it will take courageous investors to look beyond today’s discouraging credit and exit markets and back an idea that promises to bring greater efficiencies to water treatment and management. Virgin Green Fund’s Anup Jacob sees technology risk as the primary turn-off for investors, not market or execution risks. Kocher’s comments support this sentiment. In his lengthy tenure with the Santa Cruz Water Department, he has never used an unproven technology. In deference to county rate payers, he feels duty bound to stick with field-proven products. An understandable position for sure, but hardly conducive to innovation.

Savvy entrepreneurs are finding ways to circumvent the status quo. They're commercializing technology by teaming with engineering firms that offer one-stop-shop solutions to water companies. But the bigger problem remains: water is not getting the attention it deserves. And innovative water treatment and management technologies are not considered attractive investment opportunities. The US spends less on R&D in this sector than Canada. And the pace of R&D investment has been in decline since the 1970s.

According to Kocher, the most prevalent myth concerning water is that it’s plentiful and free. We continue to believe this at our peril.

Got a Start-up? Get a Visa

There’s an important immigration initiative percolating in Congress. And it's one that might even escape an acrimonious debate.

It’s a proposal by Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) to award green cards to foreign entrepreneurs. It works like this: you enter the country with a great idea and $250,000+ in start-up capital from a U.S. investor. After two years if you provide full-time employment for at least five people, raise $1 million in additional financing or generate $1 million in revenue, you get a green card.

It’s a job-creator visa proposal. A smart and practical idea to ignite innovation and create employment.

After all, it’s brains AND capital that drive innovation.

One only has to look at Silicon Valley to see how immigration shapes U.S. innovation. More than 52% of the region’s technology companies were started by immigrants. And a quarter of all U.S. patents involve an immigrant inventor. It certainly helps to have great Universities cultivating a continuous stream of international entrepreneurs. In fact, almost half of Stanford’s graduate engineering students hail from outside the U.S. And while influential voices are calling for a green card to be stapled to every graduate’s diploma, many students choose to apply their learning and talent back home.

As opportunities grow for entrepreneurs in their countries of origin, the U.S. becomes less alluring. So it’s more important that ever to find practical ways to keep them coming with their inventive ideas. In California the appeal is still strong. Even within my own small portfolio of technology start-ups, immigrants far out-number native born CEOs. For example, of five client CEOs that raised capital from Silicon Valley investors in the last 18 months, only one is native-born. Two are Irish, one is Iranian and the fifth is Chinese. They are scientists and engineers ranging in age from 30 to 64. Between them, they employ more than 150 Americans. And of course they’re inventing phenomenal technologies.

Detractors call the visa proposal a poor deal for entrepreneurs. They argue that the threat of deportation makes failure more of a risk [the antithesis of how failure is viewed in Silicon Valley). Some believe that it gives investors too much power. They've got a point. But I can't see that dissuading ambitious foreign grad students or passionate inventors with big ideas. The kind of smart individuals that compel investors to engage and inspire talented Americans to join their team.

Their DNA tends to contain a high tolerance for risk.

Are Women-led Firms Greener?

An analysis of data collected in the 2009 UC Davis Study of California Women Business Leaders suggests this may be so. The Study evaluated the presence of women at the very top of the 400 largest publicly held corporations in California. In an otherwise discouraging report of their minority status in the executive suite, this intriguing data point stood out.

To test the hypothesis that women are more apt to pursue eco-sustainable business practices, the UC Davis Study authors drew on information from two sources: Census data from their own study and a report by KLD Research & Analytics, Inc. and Newsweek Magazine which ranked the largest 500 U.S. firms on the extent to which they pursue eco-friendly policies. 62 of California’s largest 400 firms in 2009 were included on the list.

Here’s a summary of their findings: “Firms that had no women directors or executives had the poorest environmental performance. Firms that had both women managers and directors had the best environmental performance. Firms that had at least one woman director (but no women executives), and firms that had at least one woman executive (but no women directors) had environmental records in between these two extremes.”

Although the survey sample was small and it didn't evaluate for a correlation between better environmental performance and higher revenue, the results are still intriguing. Especially in California where “green” jobs are on the rise - up by 35.9% since 1995 according to a new study by public policy group, Next 10. The total number of jobs grew by only 13.3% in the same period. The study defines green jobs as those that develop new energy sources, save energy, conserve natural resources or reduce pollution.

If it’s true that women-led firms are greener as the UC Davis findings suggest, it will be a great travesty if women are as under-represented in the executive ranks of the growing clean-tech segment as they are in other industries.