According to Amanda Chapel, who blogs as Strumpette, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is exploring certification of public relations practicioners. The group set up a task force to explore professional credentials. PRSA Chairman Rhoda Weiss is quoted as saying, if the profession doesn't "take hold of the reins, the government will."
Hold on a minute. I think the government has to "take hold of the reins" in many other more important areas, before they get to regulating public relations. Weiss' veiled threat seems to me to be a justification for establishing a task force, costing I wonder how much of PRSA members' dues.
PRSA has had a certification program in place for easily 30 years -- the APR (accredited public relations) certificate. The association has done a terrible job promoting the APR over the years, and it's generally not taken seriously by many in the field. Those outside the field who might hire PR people, like marketers, probably know absolutely nothing about the APR.
Strumpette's blog quotes, with gushing reverence, Toni Muzi Falconi, a public relations guy who is former chairman of the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communications Management (never heard of it, but what do I know) and a professor at NYU's Masters in Public Relations program.
Mr. Falconi says "government regulations make sense when they seek to ensure acceptable degrees of quality, fairness, timeliness, soundness and transparency of communication from... organizations that have demonstrable influence on voter, consumer and citizen attitudes, opinions or behaviors. From this perspective I believe it's fair to say that just about every form of public relations activity today bears such impact, thus requiring overall regulation."
Jeez. I know what I do is a significant part of the marketing mix. But it's so impactful that the government needs to watch over me? I should tell my clients how important I am, and maybe they'll pay me more.
With all due respect to Strumpette and Mr. Falconi, let's put this into perspective. The public relations profession, like so many others, can benefit tremendously from major improvements in education and training of young people and infusions of courtesy, consideration and ethics. These are not things that can be regulated by the government and, certainly not by PRSA, many of whose leaders seem to be ethically challenged, if you believe what you read in Jack O'Dwyer's PR Newsletter.
Here's what the public relations field needs --
1) Education. Public relations should be a serious part of marketing courses in college. Many courses and textbooks gloss over P.R. with a chapter at best. Teaching future marketers a proper understanding of public relations and what it can -- and can't -- do would be good for everyone in marketing.
2) Training. Writing is a basic skill for public relations. A decent p.r. person should be able to write a news release, a pitch letter, client reports, etc. Much of what passes for news release copy today -- especially in product p.r. -- reads more like ad or brochure copy. It makes the job of the journalists we target more difficult and frustrating, and it causes many of them to ignore us or look at us with disdain.
Training should also include how to pitch a story -- who to target, how and when to approach a reporter (or blogger), how not to exaggerate or lie, how to understand the word "no." Also, learning how media work and what they are looking for.
At too many agencies, especially many of the mid-size and larger ones, the extent of training seems to be... pressure. Sell that story at any cost. Badger reporters until they use your material (or hang up on you.) Hype, hype, hype. Your new gadget is the best, the biggest, the fanciest... blah blah blah.
That is the training too many young people get at agencies.
3 Courtesy and Ethics. You need training and regulations for that? Don't people learn those things growing up?
Sorry to sound so cynical here, but really. Yes, the public relations industry can use some cleaning up. But getting the government or PRSA involved will just muck it up. And like I said, the government needs to spend its time regulating things like product and food imports, healthcare and insurance, gas-guzzling cars, and international policy.
Get a handle on those minor issues and then feel free to look at regulating the public relations or advertising industries. I'll wait.
(I think Strumpette was serious with this post, and I assume Toni Falconi is a real person. But I know she has a playful side. If it's a gag, she got me. But I stand by all the above nonetheless.)
Although I graduated with a BBA specializing in International Business, I don't remember anything about PR from my two marketing courses. Everything I've learned to date came from 2 books and a couple bloggers.
Education should obviously be improved so that the profession does get a little more credibility and understanding in the workplace about what it entails and doesn't. Although I'm not in the field, perhaps a better certification program should be developed by the PRSA. At least it could help.
Posted by: mvellandi | August 16, 2007 at 06:58 PM
My point exactly, Mario. Two marketing courses, and not a word about p.r. So if you happen to be in a marketing job and you have to deal with a p.r. agency, or an in-house p.r. person, you'd know painfully little about how p.r. works and how to use it. I've had clients with marketing MBAs who might have spent one day in class covering p.r., if that. Smart people, but they didn't have a clue when it came to utillizing public relations, other than telling us to get them in the paper.
PRSA has done an abysmal job representing the p.r. field, so I wouldn't want to trust them to developing and overseeing any sort of certification process.
Posted by: David Reich | August 16, 2007 at 07:27 PM
OMG...you challenged Strumpette...there's gonna be a huff, and a puff and a blow your blog down.
Just kiddin' :-).
(But I love the "reaction" her site causes. Though I worry not enough get the message. Whatnot.)
I agree that we've got a WHOPPING amount of "stuff" (please exuse that highly technical term) that we need to regulate before media relations. And that list is getting longer by the biz quarter. And while I promote best practices and ethics right alongside you, the fact is that these practices have been spun/torn/twisted and lots more by lots and lots of practitioners.
So, I see the argument for the industry policing itself (through this org) and I also see how that can be a veil for a profit center. And I really see and experience how big agencies run their junior media reps through the ringer.
Net/net: I agree with all 3 of your points but I don't know the answer for enforcing them. There is most definitely a need for better practices, whatever ensures the highest return on that goal is what I'd vote for. (If I had a vote)
Posted by: CK | August 16, 2007 at 07:47 PM
David:
I'm a member of PRSA, AMA (M=marketing) and IABC and are aware of both the APR (a friend went through the examination process and shared stories) and ABC (= accredited business communicator). I am currently eligible for the IABC/ABC exam. What did I need to do to get here?
* Submit an application with resume to document my career in communications.
* Once that was accepted as having enough of a strategic component a practitioner would have after years of practice and training (IABC offers many opportunities to do so).
* I was to study the code of ethics (which we sign upon becoming members) and submit two complete work plans.
* The work plans were as rigorous if not more than award submissions. Overview, challenge, methodology and budget, how we solved the challenge and measurement in a formal presentation including the actual item (tactic, campaign, etc.).
* The work plan is evaluated by IABC and only after passing that you are eligible for a 4.5 hour exam that includes testing on several areas of communications, including ethics. 30' are an oral presentation of a challenge solved using communications. They give you the questionnaire and challenge at the exam.
ABC is the only accreditation in my line of business that I know of that has international reach, as does the association. Of all the professional memberships I hold as listed above, I consider IABC the most useful in concrete terms. Their international conference is also quite a learning and networking opportunity.
Posted by: Valeria Maltoni | August 17, 2007 at 07:16 AM
Valeria, I forgot about IABC. I was a member many years ago, but I thought they had merged with another group several years ago. IABC might be a good certifying group. PRSA could have filled that need many years ago, but their internal politics and bad leadership has rendered them worthless in the eyes of many P.R. people, especially here in NY. But certification or regulation is something the government should keep out of -- at least in the p.r. business.
Posted by: David Reich | August 17, 2007 at 08:03 AM
David,
I am a real person (as far as I know..) although the description you give of public relations makes me wonder if I do not live in another world...Of course I am well aware that in this country (usa, where I am now) some 60 out of 100 cents of financial resouces invested in public relations activities support marketing programs. But,please consider that the US market is worth only a small part of the world market and that, in many many countries, corporate, financial, public affairs, public sector and social public relations account for more than 60% of the overall market against the 40% here.
But even so, 40% is something which is not to be ignored...
Having said this, please also consider that while most other marketing related activities are well -as they say-above the line..i.e. consumers, retailers, investors, voters and citizens at large immediately detect the primary source and decide whether or not to give their attention, in public relations, as we all know, this happens rarely. This is one good enough reason why, after having tried for decades (anc continuing to try) to press professional associations (by the way, please check out the global alliance on www.globalpr.org) to get their act together, I am convinced that licensing is a way forward. Thank you for your consideration.
Posted by: toni muzi falconi | August 20, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Prof. Falconi -- I am glad to hear you are real. My first employer and public relations mentor, Sid Gross, started the public relations program there at NYU's graduate school when he retired from agency work in the early 1980s. Perhaps you've heard of him. FYI, I studied public relations in grad school and have an MBA in PR, from Pace University.
I am addressing licensing of public relations professionals in the U.S. only. I know it is quote different and that relations with media vary widely in other nations. I think our government here has lots more important things to focus on, but if there were an organziation that had some clout and credibility, which unfortunately PRSA does not, it would be good to have some sort of educational program and ethics code that p.r. pros could adhere to. As I mentioned in my post, public relations needs to get more attention in college marketing courses.
Too many young people in p.r. here learn bad practices from their bosses or from simply not being taught properly in their first jobs.
Also, I'm not sure what description of p.r. I give in my post that you refer to.
I'd welcome the opportunity to continue this discussion with you -- online, offline by email or over lunch one day, if you'd like.
Thank you for weighing in on this. And I meant no disrespect by wondering if you are a real person. I just wasn't 100% certain that Amanda's post wasn't a gag.
Posted by: David Reich | August 20, 2007 at 12:06 PM
your response is more than kind and I am happy to continue this conversation.
in your post you said that:
quote Jeez. I know what I do is a significant part of the marketing mix. But it's so impactful that the government needs to watch over me? I should tell my clients how important I am, and maybe they'll pay me more. unquote
over these last ten/twenty years not only the practice of pr has significantly expanded its presence in all forms of organizations, but the body of knowledge has very much increased and many textbooks today no longer indicate that public relations is predominantly part of the marketing mix. This is what I was referring to.
But, excuse me for reiterating the concept, even if 100% of what we do was marketing... don't you think that consumers would prefer to have someone somewhere watching out that our activities do not harm them?
A 2005 poll by harris interactive indicates that 85% of general consumers quote...agree that public relations professionals may sometimes take advantage of the media to present misleading information that is favourable to their clients, and that they are only interested in disseminating information that helps their clients make money..unquote.
Apart from the many other compelling reasons, doesn't this alone justify my argument??
Posted by: toni muzi falconi | August 20, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Prof. Falconi -- It is true that marketing work is only one aspect of public relations. I look at non-marketing public relations as a form of marketing -- the marketing of ideas, philosophies, politics, stocks, employee thinking and loyalty. To me, it's all a form of marketing, even if not marketing a product or a service.
And yes, I agree that consumers should be protected from unethical and deceptive practices that can impact the way they think and behave. I am just not sure that licensing is the way to do it. I am afraid it will simply create more bureaucracy.
An idea might be to develop a code of ethics that, if not adhered to by a company and its public relations people, can bring severe fines to the company, its p.r. agencies and, possibly, the individuals themselves. If there were the threat of a real dollar & cents cost, perhaps then people and organizations might behave more responsibly.
Posted by: David Reich | August 20, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Picking up on the point about teaching PR to those studying marketing, I agree entirely. I think this is one of the reasons why PR is often just seen as part of the promotional mix by marketers (blame Kotler). I've seen much better understanding of the wider scope of PR in more recent marketing text books, which is encouraging.
I also believe that those studying PR would benefit from a wider knowledge of marketing principles - and more particularly business strategy.
And, whilst we're on the topic - how about strategic PR on some high profile MBA courses. We cannot possibly hope to improve ethical practice and status of PR without getting the folk at the top to recognise more widely its potential.
Posted by: Heather Yaxley | August 20, 2007 at 01:53 PM
Good points, Heather. Just what I was saying -- that we need to include studies about public relations in marketing programs at colleges.
I can't speak about all public relations curriculae, but I remember when I studied for my MBA in public relations, marketing was definitely a significdant part of our studies, to give us a wider view and let us see how p.r. fits into the broader scope of marketing.
Posted by: David Reich | August 20, 2007 at 02:45 PM
Hi David,
You said
"Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communications Management (never heard of it, but what do I know)"
(Disclosure: I'm a Global Alliance paid staff) Global Alliance is forum where all associations representing public relations professionals from around the world can share resources and seek to achieve greater unity in the profession. It's a not for profit association which intends to work by means of collaborative efforts between national public relations and communication associations - As said by Toni Muzi Falconi, (disclosure: a friend and also past-president of the Global Alliance) you can read more at our website www.globalpr.org .
We currently have 60 members which in turn represent some 160 thousand PR practitioners from the five continents. If you want to know more about the landscape for the practice of public relations in different countries, you might find it useful to look at our PR Landscapes menu.
The Global Alliance has been co-promoter of four major global events for the PR community in cooperation with national associations from Italy (Rome and Trieste), Brazil (Brasilia) and Southern Africa (Cape Town). Perhaps the estimated figure of 10% of professionals worldwide that are involved in national professional associations are a tiny minority but if you Google "World Public Relations Festival" you'll get more information about these events.
You said...
"3 Courtesy and Ethics. You need training and regulations for that? Don't people learn those things growing up?"
and you also said
"An idea might be to develop a code of ethics that, if not adhered to by a company and its public relations people, can bring severe fines to the company, its p.r. agencies and, possibly, the individuals themselves. If there were the threat of a real dollar & cents cost, perhaps then people and organizations might behave more responsibly"
Building up on several codes of ethics that associations where using worldwide, the Global Alliance involved a number of renowned experts worldwide to devise a Global Protocol on Ethics for Public Relations. This is something which fits into your second idea that the codes might actually inspire people and organisations to behave differently. Some national associations have also mechanisms to spot and punish infringements by individuals, which not always work with the same efficiency.
If you or any of the other readers want to know more about the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, please feel free to send me an e-mail to joao.duarte (at) globalpr.org.
Posted by: João Duarte | August 20, 2007 at 03:48 PM
I also think that marketing courses and text books should contain more PR. But not when it is taught or written by a marketing academic (a la Kotler) who got stuck with a 1980's view of PR as publicity only.
Would it not be more logical (and more enlightening to marketers) to give this task to PR academics who are a little more up to date with developments in their own field over the last few decades? How many marketers knew about two-way communication 10 years ago? (If any of them went to the trouble of picking up a PR text book before they wrote on what PR is or can do, they might have found out). How many marketers know that building relationships was considered a goal of public relations in Italy already in the 1980's? How many marketers know anything about reflective public relations or the strategic role of public relations as taught by a number of universities today? It is not that I expect marketing people to know all of this. After all, they are only as good as their education. But I most definitely expect marketing academics to bring themselves up to date on recent developments in the field of public relations before they take it upon themselves to define and teach it to thousands of students.
Maybe it is time that marketers take off the blinkers and look outward to recognise the changes that have taken place (not least in the field of public relations). In my view, organisations will benefit greatly if the PR and marketing functions work together/co-operate at a more strategic level rather than focus solely on sharing PR techniques.
Posted by: Benita Steyn | August 20, 2007 at 04:05 PM
Thanks for the comment and the good information Joao.
I think public relations/media relations and the media work very differently in different parts of the world. amd what works here in the U.S. might be totally wrong or unsuccessful in another land -- and vice versa. Although it was a long time ago, I attended the World Public Relations Congress in Bombay (now Mumbai), hoping to gain great insights from other p.r. professionals around the world. What I found, though, was that the media work very differently in different places, and most of the examples given at the conference from other places would have fallen flat in the U.S.
I realize I'm focusing mainly on media relations, which is, of course, only a portion of public relations. It is, I'd venture, the most visible and most sought-after component of the public relations mix. And media work differently with p.r. people around the world.
Good writing and good ethics, however, should be universal.
Posted by: David Reich | August 20, 2007 at 04:14 PM
Benita, thanks for your comments and welcome to "my 2 cents."
Part of the reason public relations has been relegated to a few pages or, at best, a chapter in marketing textbooks over the years is because of the vast differences in p.r. budgets and advertising budgets. Attention has traditionally gone where the money is.
Hopefully, as more marketers today are "discovering" the great impact p.r. can create for the dollars spent, they will learn more about the field. I think it's beginning to happen.
I've been in public relations since 1971, and one of the first things I was taught by my boss was the importance of building relationships with the media. Back then, when things moved a bit more slowly and people regularly took lunch hours, p.r. people at agencies were expected to take reporters and editors to lunch regularly, to get to know them. It's a bit more difficult now, since many people work through lunch at their desks. But relationships, built by phone, online and in-person where possible, are still important.
Posted by: David Reich | August 20, 2007 at 04:22 PM
In the spirit of openness exhibited by the previous commenter, I want to introduce myself. I am a senior lecturer in strategic public relations (which probably doesn't come as any surprise to you!)teaching on the web-based master's course in Public Relations Management at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa.
Posted by: Benita Steyn | August 20, 2007 at 04:31 PM
I'm finding this debate very interesting (as I know are several other people). I'm with Benita on PR and marketing working well together (as we do in my organization), but all the while recognizing they are very distinct/separate disciplines, with different skill sets and objectives/goals/strategies.
David, as you do seem to equate public relations mainly with media relations, I'm wondering if you are aware of this six-part radio series (MP3 files available for download) produced by Ira Basen:
From the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio One.
Spin Cycles: Spin, the spinners and the spun
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/spincycles/index.html
As well as this (year-old) podcast interview between Belgium's Philippe Borremans (public relations manager/new media lead for IBM, author of Conversationblog.com and freelance trainer) and the estimable Professor Anne Gregory (a great colleague and friend of Toni's):
PR, the Media and Democracy; an interview with Prof. Anne Gregory
http://www.conversationblog.com/journal/2006/3/23/pr-the-media-and-democracy-an-interview-with-prof-anne-gregory.html
Posted by: Judy Gombita | August 20, 2007 at 04:38 PM
Benita, thanks for letting us know your background. And Judy, I'm 100% with you on p.r. and marketing working together. I've been in situations where p.r. was treated totally separately, and others where p.r. was really integrated into the total marketing and communications mix. Integration, in my opinion, always works out better.
While much of what I've been talking about related to media relations, I certainly know about and have worked in the other disciplines of p.r. -- investor relations. employee relations/communications, customer relations, vendor relations and crisis planning/communications. I have not meant to give short shrift to those areas.
I am still puzzling with the idea of regulating public relations. On the surface, I am against the idea. If there were some strong and respected organization to handle self-policing, I might accept that idea. But unfortunately, here in the U.S. -- PRSA considered -- there is no viable group. I would not want to have the government be in charge. The international groups, including, with all due respect, Jaoa's Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, are not well known here in this country. That doesn't mean they can't become known here, but it will take some time. And I'm not sure how receptive some of the giant p.r. agencies here will be to it, and especially to the idea of regulation. I think it would be an uphill battle.
Posted by: David Reich | August 20, 2007 at 04:53 PM
David,
I think one of the first things regarding regulation is that those working in PR (and marketing) should realise the extent to which their work is already covered by legal constraints. These will vary nationally (I am based in UK), but recognising that our work is already regulated is the first step to understanding how we can, and should, go beyond this basic level of responsibility.
Picking up on your points about ethics - there is a certainly a need for a personal commitment to adhere to the law, and go beyond that in being a responsible, professional communicator.
Between the regulation that comes from personal and legal responsibilities is a need for employers to act in an ethical manner. PR practitioners can be the "ethical guardian" in developing codes of practice based on organisational values and ensuring these are adhered to as part of reputational, risk and relationship management. This goes beyond operational communications with understanding of how strategically organisations (including consultancies)need to act responsibily.
In addition to self-regulation in terms of values and codes of practice, the demands of public expectations should be understood (again a role for PR) and reflected from the top down. This applies internationally - there are not really any national boundaries in terms of ethical practices thanks to the Internet and globalisation.
The final level is to ensure that our profession is responsible in itself. That will come in part from individuals and organisations acting as role models as described above. But we also need strong professional bodies - these can provide guidance, training, examples of best practice and so forth.
I personally favour membership remaining voluntary - but with greater recognition of how this is a commitment by those who have strong personal and professional values.
The real issue is those who act unethically in the name of PR (and marketing) and affect the standing of both as professions. Do we want a reputation as being a career open to anyone, doing anything, simply to get paid - or to be recognised as valued professionals, who are able to deliver at the tactical and strategic level.
Why should we accept that large consultancies aren't prepared to recognise their responsibilities to the profession of PR? Such organisations have a responsibility to help lead the profession - with clear support for standards of practice - and not reflect a poor reputation.
Posted by: Heather Yaxley | August 21, 2007 at 04:24 AM
In reality, Heather, public relations is open to anyone. You don't need a degree in PR or journalism or marketing in order to succeed in our field. You need an ability to write and a sense of how to communicate, whether it's to employees, customers, investors or the media.
Some very successful and professional p.r. people have come from unrelated backgrounds. Similarly, should the advertising field be restricted only to those who've studied advertising or marketing?
You also mention that leadership will come from strong professional organizations. I agree, but regretfully, the primary public relations orgwnization in this country, the Public Relations Society of America, has been largely ineffectual in promoting standards and raising the profile of professional public relations. The leaders of the group seem to be too busy with internal politics and feathering their own nests. So here in the U.S., the profession has been rudderless, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others in the field.
Posted by: David Reich | August 21, 2007 at 05:06 PM
This is an interesting discussion. In marketing, what works in the UK might not work in France. But when it comes to strategic communication there are universal truths. When accrediting a communicator from Sydney to San Diego, there are certain basic elements. I'm not speaking about local tactics, but overarching concepts like creating a communication plan that supports the organization's business plan; setting measurable and timebound objectives; correctly identifying key stakeholders and the best ways to communicate with them; creating a workable plan and executing that plan professionally; and lastly, evaluating the result based upon the same metrics as the objectives.
Ned Lundquist, ABC
Vice Chair, Accreditation Council
International Association of Business Communicators
Posted by: Ned Lundquist, ABC | August 21, 2007 at 08:09 PM
With regards to David's remark "You don't need a degree in PR or journalism or marketing in order to succeed in our field" and to Ned's remark "..when it comes to strategic communication there are universal truths", it is my opinion that a PR practitioner (whether originally from PR/ journalism or marketing) will not easily 'succeed' in strategic communication management/PR today without indepth knowledge of both strategic management/ strategy as well as stakeholder and issues management, and research knowledge to be able to do environmental scanning and evaluation (see the current discussion on PR strategy on www.prconversations.com).
The goal posts to be successful in stakeholder communication have shifted substantially in the last decade. 'Success' in PR no longer equates to publicity/ media relations only. The new role of business in society, the advent of the internet, increasing stakeholder activism, the need for constant change management (to name a few) necessitate two-way communication with organisational and societal stakeholders. And that necessitates specialised knowledge since it entails research.
Strategic PR theory posits that an organisation must 'listen' to stakeholders before 'speaking' to its stakeholders. Monitoring the reputation of the organisation or evaluating stakeholder engagement implies a few big studies each year. Even though a consultant firm might be used to execute such studies, the head of the PR function (which I call the 'PR strategist') must provide direction in this regard. This necessitates indepth understanding of the organisation's business and indepth knowledge of two-way communication--knowledge not acquired by having arranged functions successfully for your CEO or distributing a few newsletters on who got promoted and who had a baby (and now labelling yourself a 'PR practitioner') or being able to write well (having been a journalist, practising one-way communication). This might have worked in an era where the PR function's success was defined by expertise in executing PR techniques. I don't believe that is the case any longer.
PS. If you think that I am an academic snob looking down on PR technicians, preaching from my ivory tower: the PR technician I described above is myself. When I started out (after declaring myself a PR technician although I had no training), I was hired to fetch foreign dignitaries from the airport..to meet important visitors at the entrance gate, take them to the CEO and then 'wine and dine' them. I was even asked by my CEO once to do the thanksgiving prayer at lunch (a custom of many Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa) since he didn't feel comfortable doing it in English! I did my job well and I am proud of it. But in no way did it equip me to manage the communication of the big business organisation of today.
BS
Posted by: Benita Steyn | August 22, 2007 at 04:54 AM
Which begs more questions. I think of myself as a communicator, not a PR practitioner. What is the difference between PR and communications? And is PR or communications a subset of marketing, or the other way around.
When you go see a licensed, certified, accredited, diploma-holding dentist, you do not go to him or her looking for a unique or different solution. There is basically one right or accepted way to treat a dental problem. But we expect a multitude of options from our creative people. There is more than one way to skin that cat (the hard part being the cat trying to get away).
Those companies that view PR or communication as a subset of marketing, look at the holistic view as it relates to sales. Those that look as communication as a function of leadership see it as a vital process to create awareness, inform, achieve understanding, conviction, and ultimately action. And the really good ones can measure that successfully.
Ned Lundquist, ABC
Posted by: Ned Lundquist, ABC | August 22, 2007 at 09:08 AM
Thanks, everyone, for all the great comments. I'm enjoying this discussion.
Benita, I agree that specialized education (and, likely, a degree) is needed for the strategic public relations work inside a corporation or an organization. Specialized education is not necessary to work at a p.r. agency, however. At least, that's the case at most agencies here in the U.S., except perhaps for some of the giant shops. I'm not saying it shouldn't be; that's just how it is here.
That's why I think public relations should be properly taught as a part of any decent marketing curriculum. And it should cover more than the tactics, but should get into strategic thinking and planning, as well as evaluation. A better understanding of public relations will help everyone in business, whether they end up in our field or work as marketers or CEOs.
Ned, I'm honored to have you join the discussion. I certainly know of IABC; in fact, I was a member many years ago. Your question about the difference between a p.r. practicioner and a communicator is a good one that opens up many doors for discussion. I think there are times when each can be considered a subset of the other. It depends on the overall objectives of any given organization, and it also can be impacted by the corporate structure.
In my work now, running a small independent public relations agency, most of my work happens to be marketing-oriented -- selling a product, service or, in the case of my work for the U.S. Government's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, I'm selling an idea that hopefully leads to behavioral change on the road. I suppose the work is both public relations and communications, and I'm honestly not sure which supercedes the other or if there's even a distinction in this case.
I did some employee relations work several years ago, which involved primarily creating and writing employee newsletters and some executive speechwriting. I considered it public relations, although it was a subset -- employee relations, further broken down as employee communications. But all under the overall banner of p.r.
I think distinctions between p.r. and communications can be an entire discussion on its own, and I'd love to participate. I'll probably post on it in the next few weeks.
Posted by: David Reich | August 22, 2007 at 09:37 AM
This is relevant to me, because I am part of the council which establishes and maintains the "global standard" for what a solid professional communicator should be. To become an Accredited Business Communicator does not mean you have to prove you are the best in the world. But it does mean that you have met the global standard, as evaluated by your peers.
Ned
Posted by: Ned Lundquist, ABC | August 22, 2007 at 01:42 PM