Owner [disclosure: and former boss in the 90's] Gary Bivings has offered some perspective to job seekers who are looking to apply their skill sets in the world on online public affairs. This follows my interview with Brian Batchelder of Fleishman-Hillard; different firms, different cultures.  Fleishman is a huge firm and Bivings is a smaller firm.  Different people prefer different work environments.

Have a read.

1. Tell my readers about the history and makeup of The Bivings Group.  What has been your market niche since the firm’s founding? And do you consider yourself a “boutique firm?”

The Bivings Group got its start back in the mid-90s.  At the time we were a traditional public affairs and crisis communications firm.  Although we were boutique-sized, our client base led us to establish offices in several other cities, in the U.S. and internationally.  But very early on we cracked the internet, so incorporating the web into our practice gave us an edge.  Of course at the time we actually had to explain to clients what the web was, what it could do for them! Over time, we developed into a more focused Washington, DC-based web development and internet communications firm.  Now a lot of our work centers on public affairs, such as The Pickens Plan (www.pickensplan.com), and we offer ImpactWatch®, a media management platform. Of course we continue to develop custom software applications too. The opportunity to invent things is one of the benefits of being on our team.

There are about 30 of us.  We work with large companies, trade associations, philanthropies, coalitions, and not-for-profits. Our relatively small size means we’re less hierarchical, more flexible than the big guns.

2.  Based upon the clients that you serve, what types of employees have your historically hired?

Like so many of our clients, we’re all over the map, quite literally:   our staff is multi-lingual, and most have had significant global living and working experiences.  But we also look for and attract staff with a cross-border or interdisciplinary approach to problem-solving: a journalist who’s also a graphic artist; an ex-TV news editor who’s teaches self-defense; a self-taught software programmer. But whether the focus is strategy, technology or content, everyone here gets the web and social media.

3.  Aside from being a good match on paper, what has traditionally made candidates — then employees – a good match for your firm?  What are the intangibles that make him/her a good culture fit?

Simple to say, hard to do.  Ideally, we want evidence of an eagerness to learn, a willingness to take (responsible) risks, a comfort with collaboration. All those less tangible qualitites matter, a lot, especially in a firm our size. Naturally you’re looking for candidates who are self-motivated, curious and fun to be around. With a lucky charm you may even get the whole package. We’ve made some very good hires over the years.  We’ve got five people who’ve been at The Bivings Group for more than 10 years.

I learned long ago that everything communicates.  When you hire someone, you’re also hiring an ambassador.  There’s nothing like hearing from a possible client that they like your staff.  It may be obvious, but it’s still important to keep in mind:  clients who like working with you will tell others.  That means your staff, whatever their job description, are also your best sales people.

4.  What are your most effective recruiting venues?  Placement firms? Job sites like Craig’s List?  Word of mouth?

We tried a placement firm once.  It didn’t work out.  Never tried again.  Not worth the effort to explain to a third party who we are and what we’re looking for.  So for us, word of mouth is best, and Craigslist works.  And then there’s the unsolicited resume that simply can’t be ignored.

5.  Working for an online public affairs firm is very different than working in-house for a corporation, for example.  Given the online nature of your clients’ challenges, what characteristics do you seek in successful candidates?

What’s interesting about our niche is that the work we do is both very focused and very broad. Focused because of the medium we work in, yet wide-ranging because our clients are engaged in everything from energy to finance to art.  Which means each member of our staff has to have certain core skills and at the same time be willing and able to become an expert in virtually any business, market and/or issue-often on a dime.

6.  Without naming names, can you recall a “slam dunk” interview in which you knew a candidate was a good match?  What demonstrated that to you during in the interview process?  [taking notes, follow up, asking the right questions, demonstrated research on the firm, "gut feeling"?]

There’ve been several.  At least I thought they were. Then someone else talked to the candidate!  So we’ve developed a process here that involves a few folks and a set of questions we’ve learned to ask.  It’s not perfect–even our hiring group has made some questionable choices–but we’ve found this process gives us a better batting average than simply going by just first impressions and intuition.

That said, first impressions really do matter.  Believe it or not, we’ve had candidates come through the door without ever looking at our website.  Once that’s been made clear it really doesn’t matter what else you learn about the candidate!

7.  What advice would you give to interns seeking work at a firm such as yours?  Recent college graduates?  People with traditional public relations or public affairs experience, but maybe not so strong on the online side?

Interns are great–one particularly great employee started here as an intern during his junior year of college–and we have nothing against recent grads.  Like anyone joining our staff, interns need to have a skill/talent in the online world, have a feel for computers and/or technology, and be very curious about the world.  Smarts counts, and it’s even better when it comes with a personality, because lots of work around here gets done in teams.

But a cautionary note:  over the years we’ve found that many younger hires are not well-acquainted with or prepared for the demands of a professional work situation.  From what we hear, this is a pretty great place to work—we’re supportive, fun to be with and encourage our staff to have full lives outside the office—but we do expect anyone who works here to be fully dedicated to the task at hand. It’s what we promise our clients and it’s what we expect from our staff. “That’s not my job” or “but it’s 5:00” won’t cut it here.  Nipping out in the middle of the day for a doctor’s appointment is a no-brainer, and so is taking extra time at lunch when workflow permits.  But when there’s a deadline, it’s all hands on deck and we expect everyone to be fully committed to getting the job done, and getting it done well.

8.  Which do you value more:  a candidate whose experience closely matches a job description, or someone who is eager, malleable and intellectually curious with the potential to grow into a role?

Tough one.  The truth is we value both.  There’s a technical side to our business, even our client-facing people have various skills – graphic arts, video editing, etc. But it’s real hard to turn down a critical thinker who’s a superb writer and is fun to be around!

9.  If one were interested in working for the Bivings Group, how would he/she apply?

As it turns out, we are looking for someone in the DC area with experience in the public affairs world and expertise with social media.  The job description is at here.

Editor’s note:  I spent the better part of five years at the Bivings Group – my crowning achievement was being manager of the softball team.

If you read this blog regularly, you will know that I have been in overdrive, trying to raise money for a very brave little girl battling cancer – and one who lost her daddy in an automobile accident in 2007.

I set my St. Baldrick’s fund raising goal $1,000 higher than last time (this year is $3,000) and I am not even at one-third.  Perhaps it’s the economy. That’s my problem, so this is not whiny post.  I am eternally grateful to those who have contributed;  among the donors are one family whom I know is in very tight financial straights and one girl who is unemployed. Dozens of people have re-tweeted or written about my quest.

But this is SO not about me.

I will leave you with this quote from Lauren’s Care Pages site.  It’s a painful chronology of  a little girl who has been in and out of hospitals for the past five years, but I found this extremely poignant:

Last night the school was supposed to have a Daddy Daughter dance..Lauren  refused to go if she couldn’t go with daddy.”

A child.  With cancer.  Without her daddy.

Here’s your last chance to contribute.

Thank you.

Mark

As many news-based organization are now weighing if, or how much, to charge for access to their content, I have seen a recent example of how NOT to make the transition.

I think that most everyone is aware that the media mogul Rupert Murdoch had said a few months ago that he plans on charging for access to his content.  He owns a lot of stuff, and will be, I think, a trendsetter in the 20-year struggle of how to make money from online news.  The advertising model has clearly failed and he is trying to figure out a way to make money by charging for content.

He can do it.  He’s got lots and lots of news properties.

On the other hand, Jack O’Dwyer runs “O’Dwyer PR,” which provides rankings for global public relations firms based upon revenue.  His site also offers  other things like links to blogs and a section for job seekers.

To cut to the chase,  Mr. O’Dwyer recently created a new fee structure for agencies, aside from the $295 per subscription that he was charging:

“The firms we have made this demand to are firms with $2M to $25M and more in fees that give us minimal business.”

So essentially, he set up a fee structure – the more revenues you have, the more you pay.  In fairness, this is how many trade associations operate, the principle being that the more money you make, the bigger stake you have in the industry.  Not so much here.

BUT –  if you are considering charging more, the last thing that you want to do is to take your battle public and get into a pissing match with a client.  Oops.  He did.

Waggner Edstrom dropped their subscription, stating, on their Panorama blog:

Jack O’Dwyer, publisher of O’Dwyer’s annual list of PR agencies, recently made it clear that he will begin charging participants a fee to be included. We at Waggener Edstrom have decided that this arrangement does not support our business objectives. While we have participated in prior years, O’Dwyer’s list has not had a measurable impact on our business efforts for some time.

We are, however, taking part in other industry rankings that do not require payment, and which have proven to deliver as good, or better, results for our business. But because of our decision, O’Dwyer has singled us out for declining to advertise.

In his blog, O’Dwyer regularly calls on agencies to support trade media. The reality is that we do support the industry.

We have advertised with other publications such as PR Week, and we will continue to sponsor events that offer a thoughtful dialogue on emerging industry topics. We are also a member of the Council of PR Firms — another organization that O’Dwyer has taken to task for not financially supporting his business to the extent he deems sufficient.

Ouch.

One would think that a quiet “it’s been nice, but we aren’t going to do business anymore email” would have been more effective.  But Jack apparently didn’t get the memo, responding to Waggener Edstrom:

“Waggener Edstrom, with $119 million in revenues in 2008, 843 employees, and No. 2 on our rankings, has only one web/NL sub at $295. It refuses to pony up a nickel more.

We just don’t fit into their “marketing plan,” a marketing executive told us. Several other large ranked firms have the same attitude.

So we’re booting Wagged and the others off the rankings. They’re not “PR” firms.

Rather than having any sense of community, they only have a sense of what’s in it for them. They don’t like independent media that can challenge them. They don’t live up to the term, “public.”

Why are we forbidden reading material at Wagged? What are they afraid of? PR people should not be afraid of news and information about their own industry.”

I could go on and on at my astonishment of how a veteran of public relations could handle the impact of the loss $590 a year by going public with an online temper tantrum, “booting” them from your list and risking alienating many other large firms, but I am not in the business of providing crisis communications counsel – unless you hire me.

Lists and organizations like this are, in my opinion, a dying breed.  Before unilaterally deciding upon a price increase, no matter how modest, I would advise Mr. O’Dwyer to consult something called “The Laffer Curve.”  This economic model became popular in the Reagan Administration and its basic premise is that there are diminishing returns beyond a certain point of taxation.  If you tax individuals and corporation at 90 percent, you will actually bring in LESS revenue to the government because people will intentionally produce less and businesses will have less money to spend on things like hiring new employees.

It’s the same basic thing here.  If you charge more — and call out a former ally, it is likely that your revenues may actually DECREASE.  Especially if it is handled in this manner.

Mr. O’Dwyer:  here’s some free advice.  If you have a time machine, hop in it, go back and figure out how much more revenue you will gain from your new model and compare it to the firms that you will lose by publicly calling out a firm in what looks to me an act of petulance and desperation.

And for the love of God, as someone who has built a business on developing good relationships with public relations firms (I find irony in the use of “public relations”), don’t get into an online pissing match with a well-regarded $119 million-dollar firm — and risk alienating other firms – over a measly $590.

Take it offline and stop shouting down everyone who disagrees with you.

Mr. O’Dwyer – you are no Rupert Murdoch.

Mark

First, thanks to everyone who re-tweeted and especially to those who donated to my St. Baldrick’s fundraising drive.  While it made me feel great that that the post got more than 1,000 page views, donations are down from last year.

In my last post, in newspaper terms, I “buried the lead.” I was so taken with describing the situation faced by the child whom I am honoring, Lauren, that I may not have been a succinct as possible.  So here goes:

1. Please consider donating to St. Baldrick’s, the organization that makes the second largest amount of contributions to childhood cancer research, excluding only the U.S. government.
2. What’s in it for you? You’ll feel good.  If you are a parent, you are touching other parents.  If you do not yet have children, you may well be making a down payment on finding a cure for a disease which may, in fact, impact your life.  Or your grandchildren’s lives.
3. If I have in any way ever helped you or touched your life, please consider this karma.
4. Finally, by the simple act of making whatever contribution you can, you are lending support and care for a little girl who has been through more in ten years than most of us do in our entire lives.

Please. Any amount.  Just do it.

Mark

It has taken me about four days to write this post.  I start.  I stop.  My eyes well up.  Then I start again.  Please read the whole thing.

And yes, I will end up asking you to make a contribution to help fund research to beat childhood cancer.

About Lauren

Lauren is 10 years old.  I have never met her, but outside of my own daughter, I think that she is the prettiest little girl in the world.  On March 4, 2005, this beautiful little girl was diagnosed with Langerhan’s Cell Histiocytosis/Ensophillic granuloma.  It is every parent’s worst nightmare to have a sick child, but when you hear scary words like “chemotherapy” and “survival rates” as a parent, it is beyond my ability to process.  My own story is not important, but I spent plenty a day in the waiting area of the Lombardi Cancer Institute in Washington, DC watching the looks of anguished parents as they carried in their children whose withered bodies were unable to move themselves.

Lauren’s mom and dad joined the CarePages site (an online support group – you have to join the site) in 2005, and as of this writing, there are 609 postings – chronicling disagnoses, treatments, illnesses, operations, WAY too much time spent in hospitals.  And unspoken anguish.  Ten year-old children (like my own son) should be out playing, running, jumping, giggling.  Skinning their knees.  NOT being hooked up to machines, poked with needles and spending hours in the car going to and from doctor’s appointments. IT JUST IS NOT RIGHT.

I “met” Lauren’s mom, Heather, online more than two years ago when I decided to join a St. Baldrick’s Team.  I chose to sponsor Lauren at random, since she and my son are about the same age. The premise of St Baldrick’s is simple:  I raise money that goes to “…most brilliant childhood cancer research experts in the world to find cures and improve the quality of life for patients and survivors.” I raise money, show up in an Irish pub in DC and get my head shaved.  I am almost ashamed at how little I do compared to the enormity of that parents of childhood cancer victims – and the children themselves – face every day.

The Unspeakable

It is hard to find words to describe her, but Lauren’s mom, Heather, is strong and determined – but in ways that someone should never be tested. On December 13, 2007, Heather’s husband – and Danielle and Lauren’s daddy – George – was killed in an automobile accident.  Imagine police knocking on the door.  Having to tell two little girls that their daddy has gone to heaven -  right before Christmas.  Heather has endured the loss of her husband and partner in Lauren’s care while managing her daughter’s illness and attempting to provide a sense of normalcy both for Lauren and Danielle.  From everything that Heather has told me, George was a strong man, and one who would always know what to do.  Two years ago, when I did St. Baldrick’s, I held a picture of the family in lap because I wanted to honor all of them, but also wanted George to be there in spirit.

My Pitch

A child’s life should carefree, fully of laughing and playing, but Lauren’s short life has also been full of ER visits, chemo and the loss of her daddy – things that many people could not endure in a lifetime, let alone ten short years.  I wish — more than just about anything — that I could bring back George, Heather’s husband and Lauren and Danielle’s daddy.  I wish that I could take away Lauren’s illness and that of any other childhood cancer victim.  I can’t.

What I can do is to use my own skill sets and determination to raise money to fight this.  To hopefully add to the cadre of online supporters that  the family has.

So for those of you who follow this, I am literally begging you:  please consider giving a donation to St. Baldrick’s.  If you are not in a position to donate, then please share post this with your friends or re-tweet it.  I have set a pretty aggressive fund raising goal based upon my own passion.

None of us can change the past, but with a few tears, determination, courage, and yes, funding, we can change the future.

Please give.

Mark