Industry Watch: Strategic Communications PR Agency
December 2005

Q&A with Richard S. Levick, Esq., President, Levick Strategic Communications

Q: How did you get into public relations and what drew you to such a powerful arena?
Like a lot of things in life, it was a backwards approach. I wasn't one of the kids who stood up on career day in fourth grade and said "I want to be in communications." In fact, I didn't recognize it as the common denominator until much later, through my first career, my first business and subsequent graduate degrees. In my mid thirties I realized that the things I loved were a combination of business, law, politics and communications, but that it was always the communications aspect that made all the other disciplines so intriguing - getting other people to understand and support a point of view.

I had been involved in many political outreach efforts, starting in college, and, after earning a law degree, I realized quickly that I would never enjoy practicing law. At the same time, I saw a tremendous need for enhanced communications in the legal profession, so the two experiences dovetailed. But it was the transformation of my own firm that has really kept me engaged and excited about this field. Over the years our firm evolved to specialize almost exclusively on high stakes communications, so that we are really focused on the central issues of our day - Guantanamo, the Catholic Church, the Iraq War, Napster -- some of them with a legal tinge and some not.

I care a great deal - in fact, I worry a great deal - about the quality of public communications, of how issues are twisted, and how people are misled (sometimes very willingly so). In our business, you can do two things. You can zealously advocate your clients' causes, but you can improve the whole communications milieu as well. You can do it by example, by word, and by deed. I see now that it was always this possibility - of participating in the public dialogue as well as playing some role to improve that dialogue - that attracted me to this business at the beginning of my career and that has kept me so passionately involved.

Q. What was the path you took to your current position? How did your career evolve? Was your success orchestrated or an evolution based on serendipity?
The evolution may not always have been elaborately conscious, but it was certainly defined and guided by my personal values. On the one hand, I have always been pretty independent, so it was likely inevitable that I'd own my own firm. In terms of the substance of our work, I never said, "Ok, front-page litigation and crisis will now be the centerpiece of our work." But when that opportunity arose, I jumped at it. Everything I care about, and that really interests me, supported our new mission. It was only "serendipitous" in the sense that my firm was in the right place at the right time. If not altogether "orchestrated," it was certainly a natural progression for someone with my concerns and commitments.

From a business point of view, having represented more law firms by far than any communications firm in the world, we knew our work would evolve from largely law firm marketing to almost exclusively high profile litigation and crisis work if we produced exceptional results and earned the trust of the world's great lawyers that we represented. This took many years and risks - literally being on the bleeding edge of the new and evolving profession of law firm media (only permitted after a Supreme Court ruling in 1977 and only begun practice by large law firms in the early 1990's).

From an emotional point of view, it was imperative to me, and the partners and associates that we attract, that we build an "abundance mentality" culture. There are no male cats here, no hording of territory. Professionals have both great autonomy and great responsibility. They are richly rewarded for their success but also responsible for their shortcomings. We work very hard not to let egos get in the way, and I think we have largely succeeded. You are rewarded for being better at something than me or others. In fact, we all expect that each person brings something unique and special to the party. Maybe it is deep financial communications expertise, or food issues, book tours, political understanding, or television relationships. It is truly the richness of the team that is idealized, not the greatness of the individual.

Q. How would you define public relations as practiced by your company?
I would define it as "high-stakes communications," which goes a long way beyond public relations in the traditional sense. We're talking about brand preservation, and not just corporate product and service brands. We're talking about reputation and credibility often in life-or-death situations. Our approach to hiring employees or accepting clients is that you either hire us (or join us) to win, or please go somewhere else. If you want to hire a communications firm just because your competitor has or because it is in the budget, then we are not the firm for you.

We are entirely about winning, whatever it is - getting the story out of the press, making the situation better, crossing the goal line. In the Guantanamo matter, we are about helping detainees and their families caught up in the terrorism dragnet which snared many innocent people, get a fair trail and due process. It is not enough to get a majority of the nation's largest newspapers to editorialize on behalf of our client's position. We need to work closely with diplomats, with the lawyers, with any parties that will help, with a coordinated campaign, to get the client to the end result. Feature stories with your client's point of view are nice but it is not currency. Winning is nicer - it is what clients ultimately hire you for.

Q. What intrigues you more, the challenge of the task at hand or the politics behind it?
You simply can't separate the two. Communications is about the "what" and the "how." Content is akin to policy - political! Style is all about persuasion - political! Every part of the challenge is political. How you're heard by the media, how they trust or don't trust you, is political. Maybe most important, people in our business must often persuade clients to take the steps we think are in their best interest. That's really political.

I don't think great professional communicators can exist in a vacuum. You have to have a multitude of skills - political, legal, business, and media. Have you listened to what the client really wants and needs? Industry wide, most of our clients don't really know what they want. They call it "public relations" because it is an umbrella term. You have to listen really closely and understand what their pain is and how you are going to solve it. Maybe it is part advertising, lobbying, negotiations, and stealth.

So the politics begins with the first moment of the first sales meeting and continues through every communications, every phone call, every e-mail. The client relationship may involve money, a retainer, but it is really barter. The client is extending their trust, revealing their secret, their pain, and you are providing your unique expertise to solve a problem that few others know how to solve. In our field of high stakes communications, there are a number of highly trained professionals who frequently work for the same client, who all think they can solve the problem - the lawyer, the lobbyist, the diplomat, and us. And maybe we are all right, and maybe we are all wrong. What is key is that we work closely together and provide the client with the very best, most economical and efficient service to get them what they need. So all of it, the issue itself, the client relationship, the internal team structure, and the external team of lawyers, lobbyist, etc. is all highly charged with real and personal politics. How can you not love that challenge?

Q. How much of political campaigns, issues, etc. is public relations (as opposed to 'back room' wheeling and dealing)?
I think it is all about the campaign. We are not motivated to buy by a single event. We do not make or reconsider a personal opinion based on a single superficial experience. It is all like Gary Larson's "Jurassic Calendar" where a dinosaur looks at his monthly calendar and each is marked "Kill something and eat it." We are overwhelmed with information - 3,000 to 5,000 messages a day. If we hope to have our client cut through this clutter, we have to forge campaigns that get noticed, over and over, in many different ways.

The change in public opinion on the absence of due process at Guantanamo; the recovery of some Orders of the Catholic Church; the desire to use or not use Teflon coated pans; or the perception of some businesses after Hurricane Katrina. The list is endless, and these are all based on political-type communications campaigns with specific goals.

As to back rooms, we do use investigations to find out the topography of a situation. What motivates an adversary? What is their weakness? Will a shot across the bow lead to a meeting or settlement. In some situations we do try to force negotiations, or create an environment where there can be a win-win. The question is not how much of which tactic you use. The question is, what do you need to do to win?

Q: Have you ever turned down an account because you disagreed with their position? Can you tell us about it (you can use broad strokes if specifics would lead to litigation)?
As a crisis firm, we help people in trouble. That means there are not a lot of people we can or should say no to, when they are in trouble. We approach clients like defense lawyers do, all clients deserve representation in the court of public opinion. But we do have a few rules. One of them is that we will not work with clients who are not interested in winning. Running in place is not good for anyone. We do not have a minimal fee, but we will only work with clients who are jewelers - those that understand the value of the work they are engaging. We try very hard to work with partners, those companies and individuals who are great at what they do and appreciate the skills and opinions of other professionals. As soon as someone thinks of us or refers to us as a "vendor" we know the relationship is short loved. You do not think of your spouse as a vendor. We have to have trusting relationships just like family. The relationship needs to be a partnership to work.

Q: You do a lot of work for large legal firms and big corporations. What about "the little guy" or pro bono work?
There's never a time when we don't have some pro bono assignment on our plate, from worthy professional associations that are under-funded and universities to death row inmates. (We handled media for the death row inmates released a few years ago by the Governor of Illinois.) Some firms like to use pro bono as training. I don't agree with that. If anything, pro bono clients need your best counsel more than anyone.

Q: You've dealt with some emotionally charged issues. Do you generally try to diffuse the emotion or use it to your advantage? If so, how do you do that?
This all depends on which emotions you are talking about. Half of what clients hire us for is to have a steady hand during the most perilous times, so we need to be emotionless in our thinking. Yet we also need to be passionate about our faith and support of our client. This requires a learned balance. Simultaneously we need to instruct our client to tone down their personal emotions. This is not a business about facts. It is a business about perceptions. Patience, steadiness, and quick thinking win the day. Sticking to your guns and being convinced you are right only gives you one angle. And finally, there are the emotions of the target audience or audiences. What do they care about? That is the only place your message can exist. Who cares what you or your client thinks? It is about the emotions of the listener.

In some ways, to be effective, communicators are Buddhists. First seek to understand, then to be understood. What exists in the minds of your audience? Once you get in their, they convey your message, and it becomes a part of their emotional and intellectual gestalt.

Q: Please outline the most difficult challenge you've ever faced and how you approached it.
My father always said that "business is problems." He deliberately used tortured English to make his point. Running a business is always about solving problems. You can look at them as problems or as your "to do" list. As challenges which, upon success, take you to the next level. I've always preferred that latter approach.

As for clients, we are in the "Mission Impossible" business. Two years ago, which newspaper cared about the civil rights of Guantanamo detainees? None of them, yet today, almost all of them editorialize on the issue. Eighteen months ago, most television networks were too afraid to broadcast the names and faces of the dead soldiers and private contractors (who make up 10% of America's fighting) from Iraq (they still won't televise pictures of the wounded in hospitals), yet today, major features run on the law suits filed over the private contractors who have been killed in that war. Last year, no one knowledgeable about Middle East finance thought a major bank merger could be halted, and yet it was. Almost all of our crisis clients present exceptional challenges. As Gene Kranz, former Flight Director of NASA used to say, "Failure is not an option."

Q: You're hired to provide strategic communications/crisis management for a head of state. (Think Richard Nixon during Watergate/Bill Clinton during Monicagate - trying to be non-partisan here) How would you approach it? What would be the first thing you advise?
So much would depend on the specific history and on the peculiar dynamics existing between the heads of state and their constituents. But I would suggest three overall considerations that advisors should focus on in times of crisis.
First, what is it in the make-up of the leader that got him into the trouble and how can that alloy in the metal be dealt with? In Nixon's case, it was a massive distrust of people, a mean-spiritedness that allowed him to forget the lesson of his own Checkers speech in 1952. I would have reminded him point-blank of that moment 20-plus years earlier. And I would have blatantly appealed to his self-interest - "Mr. President, if you continue to obey your instincts, you will lose." Second, what is the abiding tie between the leader and his people that is stronger and deeper than any of the negatives presented by the crisis? If you reflect on what Bill Clinton endured, it's amazing that even today he shows his face in public. The most intimate details were highlighted on every front page in the country, yet somehow the bond between him and his people got him through. You analyze that bond, you define it, and you use every visual op and sound-byte to play to it. Maybe we were all a bunch of enablers to put up with his zany behavior, but he had the same connection to the public that Reagan and Roosevelt had. It was a kind of - dare I say "tenderness?" People need it in their leaders and leaders who have it survive the great flood. Third, you look for articulated public values that can support your position. For example, Americans love the idea of privacy. We're a very individualistic people, and what we do behind closed doors is our own business. That's one value. Opposed to it is the Puritanical streak in the American character.

So you see, a single political issue, like impeaching a President, is actually a struggle between two central instincts in the people themselves. You hit hard on that privacy theme. You strengthen its impact, you increase its resonance. You get everybody on TV talking about privacy. You make the other guy look bad for snooping. If privacy wins, Clinton wins.

Q: Now, getting down to the reason many people come to this site, what words of advice can you give our job seekers, regardless of experience? Both in general and, more specifically, to come work for you.
What are you great at? What do you bring to the party that makes you unique? What makes you irreplaceable? Working hard is expected. So is being smart and giving it your all. These are the baseline. Absolutely necessary, but does not distinguish you from others who want to work here or at many fine firms. If you want to work here, I want to know specifically what you think of our work, from your own research and investigation. What do we do well? What could we do better? I want to know what beyond exert communications skills you bring. Is it a unique understanding or contacts in a particular industry? Is it a specific issue? You need to have the marriage of two critical skills - communications and at least one of the following: industry, business, legal or political skill. Just having one makes you a good commodity. Having both makes you a highly sought after professional. You need to play well with others. If you are territorial, if you are about scarcity mentality (success of others means less success for you), then you need to look somewhere else. You need to be passionate. Our work is among the most important in the world, or at least it is to our clients. If you can't share that passion, that sense of acute urgency, then don't apply. Passion is not something you can lie about. It is evident in your eyes.