Anthony B M Good, Chairman, Good Relations

Making its way in India in 1987, Good Relations is a pioneer of sorts when it comes to the Indian public relations scene. The coming in of the company brought in the concept of an independent PR agency in the Indian market. Since then not only has the agency witnessed the evolution of public relations in India, but has also played an important role in giving PR the face it has today.

In an interview with Noor Fathima Warsia, Anthony B M Good, Chairman, Good Relations, shares the initial experiences, the current day battles and his perception of public relations as an important function of any business.

Q. Let us begin with Good Relations. Being one of the first players in the market, you have pioneered the domain of public relations in India. What is the model with which you entered the market?

To give you a background on Good Relations, in the early 1980s we were the only public relations company to float in the London Stock Exchange. The pattern in which we started Good Relations in India is very similar to the way we began in the UK. That is an independent public relations agency rather than a subsidiary or a department of any other company or an adjunct to advertising.

Q. What form of PR was there then?

PR as a concept existed but it was in a very basic form. Companies hired PR clearly to get media coverage. They were not looking at advises on positioning themselves in the market or dealing with crisis management. The Indian business scene itself has changed over the years. There are more elements now – corporate governance rules, groups like the environmentalists, consumerists and the like, etc. So, in essence, the task is much more complex for the Indian businessmen today. And I believe that they need advice and guidance. I have always believed that public relations require strategic thinkers and competent business minds. When you are a subsidiary or an adjunct to another discipline, you can never grow to be something like that.

Q. What else in the market has changed that led to an evolved PR system in India?

Two things primarily – one, the business media of the country is more defined now and second, the new school of journalists are more inquisitive, looking for a larger, different story. Before my current role I was a journalist. I had told myself then that if I ever were in PR, I would rather be a bridge than an obstacle between my client and the media. Journalists don’t realise the problems that we have to go through to persuade our clients to open up more. I am sure there are times when even you have thought of us as a hurdle.

Q. Well, I would be lying if I denied that…

…and not surprisingly, I don’t subscribe to that view.

Q. What are the hurdles that you faced when you began with an independent PR agency in the country?

Initially I was worried to what extent would we face the ‘brown envelope’ problem. I was told that one doesn’t get very far if the brown envelope wasn’t given to journalists and that we were not prepared to do. Now, of course, with this new school of journalists, things have really changed but it wasn’t necessarily the same with the earlier generation. Fortunately, however, that always remained a concern and never really turned into a problem.

Q. And how do you do that?

I begin with quoting Emmison, “The Man who makes a better master will have the world beat up the path to his door” and then I tell them it is not true any more. In a world where everyone is shouting his or her worth, you have to make your voice heard. There are two things that separate PR from advertising. One, the impact of editorial as opposed to an ad – people buy newspapers to read the editorial, not to look at the ad. Second, ‘third party endorsement’ – people believe what a newspaper correspondent says. Businessmen today are increasingly realising that. And then look at various recent researches. All indicate that people don’t remember advertisements, they only remember editorials.

Q. Does that more or less make PR a substitute to advertising?

No. Advertising is necessary even if it is wasted. The chairman of Unilever was asked many years ago if he was satisfied with the value he got from the many million pounds that the company pumped into advertising. He replied, ‘Sir, I am sure half of these investments are wasted but if you show me which half, I will make you a rich man!’ So when you are an FMCG manufacturer or anything like that, you need to reach your audience even when you know many of those messages will not reach them. PR gives better value but it can never be a total substitute, nor is it intended to be.

Q. What would you say then is the current state of PR?

It is an evolving field. People are realising its importance. Where initially we would approach clients, clients approach us now. But I wouldn’t say that PR has arrived. The change is a gradual one. We had to tell people about the importance of PR and we still have to do that. But from where we began, the PR scene has considerably changed.

Q. Would that mean there are new problems on the scene?

Oh yes. One of the problems is that most of our competitors see PR not as a profit centre but as a cost centre and are happy to throw in market research and sales promotion, all to get a bigger advertising account. Then there are new arrivals on the scene of people who may be former journalists, who are actually looking to recover what they previously earned as salaries, maybe working out of their backrooms. Sadly, as in any field, there are some unscrupulous people who will take very low fees proposing to make a difference but will do no work. They know they will eventually get sacked but at least they made that much money. So with that kind of competition, it is still a task to convince the client to pay that extra for better service and that is one problem that we continue to face.

Q. I would say most do that but the PR route doesn’t really help either. In many cases, PR agencies just don’t get back in time and more than anything else they become the people who delay the process.

PR people can be obstructionists and they can be bridges. On that, of course, I can speak only for us and I believe that we are necessarily the bridges. But you have to agree that there are times when you can’t tell the journalist everything they want to know. Or, at least not in the time-frame they want the information in. It could be due to anything – company policies, set objectives – anything.

Q. Do you follow some kind of code about the kind of companies you deal with?

Yes, of course, and that is based on both practical and moral reasons. As an agency we follow certain ethos of the kind of people we want to be associated with. The first point there is not to work with people who are not in legitimate business or operate in a shady manner. When you are with the right kind of people, there is no problem in the flow of information. I am not saying that this leads us to always agree with the client. As a matter of fact, my point about strategic means that many a times we disagree, we argue and then we reach a consensus.

Q. Tell us more of what it was like when you started your company in 1987?

The purpose of my visit to India back then was due to the nature of my business with Cox and Kings. My colleague then asked me if I thought India was ready for a full-fledged PR agency like the one we had in the UK. We realised that indeed it was, and happily we were right. What we did not have in India that time was the much sophisticated business media that we now have. In the mid 1980s, the business sections were very small in the then publications. There were no special business programmes. Then the media tended to take releases from different companies and copy them word for word.

Q. But do companies ever question the need for an independent PR agency at all?

All the time! Many a times they understand the need and in many other times, you make them understand.

Q. What are the other problems that you face from the client’s side?

Apart from convincing them to pay, you mean! Another trouble is persuading them to open up to the media, to talk. Clients say things like ‘What business is it of theirs’ and we have to constantly convince them that they have to talk to maintain an image. So, in that way we have to stand up to them and that doesn’t really make us popular. But I believe that we won’t be confident professionals if we did not do that. Again, as I said, this situation is also changing and people are recognising the value that we subsequently add.

Q. Can that lead to cases where the media is misled?

Knowingly? No. We make it a point that we don’t. If I tell you something that you subsequently find out is totally untrue, are you going to trust me again? I don’t think so. You will not deal with me again and that is a situation no PR executive would ever want to be in.

Q. What do you mean by the term strategic here?

By strategic, I mean that part of public relations where the practitioners are, if not more, equally involved with formulation of communication messages and strategies. They should be in charge of the message and transmission of the message. People have realised this need. That is why we have seen PR evolve the way it has.

Q. But what do you add to the interaction between the client and the media?

Well, I think there are three points that we bring in. One, we tell the client and we keep telling them of the importance of media. Second, we are an added resource to both ends – clients and media. Also, good PR people persuade their clients to open up to the media and not clam up and I am not denying that some companies in India do exactly that.

Q. What do you do when there is a problem report against your client?

Well, the PR doesn’t have a magic wand. What they do have is an objective outside the view of the situation, sufficient understanding of the market and the media. They also need to get the client to tell them the truth and also enough legal advice. Then, whatever you do depends on the situation. But necessarily, if you are in the wrong, you must come out and say it. Correct the fault immediately and keep the people informed about it, even if it means withdrawing products or ceasing operations for a while. Then go back and reposition your product in the market. Now it may not be simple to rectify the problem, it depends on what it is. The client, of course, must take both legal and PR advises in this case. But then again he has to be careful that he just doesn’t win a battle at the cost of the war. And that is where PR helps him more than anything else.