from Jack O'Dwyer: Update on Public Relations Society

Like me, Jack O'Dwyer, who has been writing about the PR business for some 40 years or more, is not a big fan of PRSA, now called PRS (Public Relations Society). 

I was a member of PRSA many years ago and found it to be useless, for me at least.  But over the years, mainly from reading Jack's newsletter and from people I know who've been involved in PRSA, the group has become even more irrelevant than it was years ago.  For me, as a small PR practitioner, the organization seems to offer nothing.  It seems to be dominated by folks from the giant agencies, and it has little connection anymore to New York City, which is home to a huge segment of our industry. 

I've been writing here for years about how PRS should undertake a real effort to help improve the PR profession's image by explaining what we do and by leading an effort to promote PR education at agencies and in business schools.  The recent PRS effort to define PR did bring some attention to our business, but the definition that came out of the process falls short and is woefully inadequate.  In fact, many in PR have mocked the final outcome.

With that said, so you know a bit about how and why I feel about PRS, let's move on to what Jack O'Dwyer has been saying over the past few days.  He's raised two issues that are current.

First, as the election of a new chair of PRS is coming soon, Jack writes that he has a real problem with the board's apparent designee, Joe Cohen of MWW Group here in New York.  I don't know Joe; in fact, I had never heard of him until Jack mentioned him to me last week.  You can read in Jack's newsletter (link is at the start of the paragraph) why he feels Joe would not be a good chairperson and -- worse yet -- why Jack feels the whole nomination process is corrupt.  At this point, I know very little about PRS and its politics, but I do trust Jack.  He's been a watchdog, and if he feels there's a problem at PRS, I would tend to believe him.  Check out Jack's column on the PRS elections.

Jack also raises the issue of PRS' APR accreditations.  In a message he sent me yesterday, he notes that PRS just released results of the first nine years of its new Accreditationb program that shows participation by PRS members is half of what it used to be.  An average of 136 new APRs have been given in the past nine years, compared to an average of 274 in the previous ten years of the APR program.

To me, it shows the value (or lack of value) people in our business place on the APR.  Jack says, no wonder!  The new test, he says, is multiple choice questions on a computer, done after a "readiness review" that involves no writing.  Previously, the test involved 5-1/2 hours of writing and was graded by an outside service.Tying it back to PRS elections, Jack says the Society still does not allow non-APRs to run for national office, which means more than 80 percent of PRS members are not able to run.

Honestly, I don't what to make of all this.  It just doesn't smell right.

Thanks, Jack, for keeping an eye on this and for trying to keep PRS honest and open, for the benefit of us all.

Comments

[Jack O'Dwyer]

You're right in that something smells here. Although
interest in APR is miniscule (less than one percent of the eligibles get it each year) and half of what it used to be, PRS is obsessed with its alleged value, blocking more than 80% of members from running for national office for at least 35 years.

[twitter.com/arthury]

Mr. Reich,

If O'Dwyers is your primary and most-trusted source of information about PRSA, it's not surprising that you hold a jaundiced view of the organization.

It is surprising, though, that in your experience you found the organization "useless," which is a particularly strong word no doubt chosen carefully. Of course, I would caveat that by saying association membership is not for everyone, and members typically get out of the experience as much as they're willing to put into it.

All of that aside, I'd like to correct a few misconceptions that you seem to hold:

-- PRSA does have, as you seem to be aware, a set of resources for public relations professionals to use to help foster more accurate and better informed perceptions about the role and value of public relations. It's called "The Business Case for Public Relations." More info here (http://bit.ly/2JU9X2).

-- PRSA also has, as you don't seem to be aware, a program to encourage business schools to incorporate public relations instruction into their MBA programs. We refer to it internally as the "MBA Initiative"; Dartmouth and Northwestern are among the schools participating. More info here (http://bit.ly/rFThrS), as well as here (http://bit.ly/LoLHj7), here (http://buswk.co/MnEPAZ), here (http://bit.ly/PyOgRy) and here (http://bit.ly/LSWHzO).

-- PRSA is not known anywhere outside the pages of O'Dwyers as PRS. Never has been.

-- PRSA is not "dominated by folks from the giant agencies." Just 18 percent of PRSA members work for agencies with more than one employee.

-- PRSA has the same connection to New York that it always has had.

Guess the lesson here, as on O'Dwyers, is that you just can't believe everything you read.

[David Reich]

Thanks for the info. I still think PRSA needs to take a higher profile in promoting, and sometimes defending, the PR profession.

There's not much else out there about the happenings at PRSA, so I have to rely on Jack's columns, bias and all. And I don't have patience for the politics.

[twitter.com/arthury]

Hi David,

Actually, there's quite a bit "out there" on the happenings of PRSA. When you have a moment, please stop by our online newsroom (http://media.prsa.org), where we've aggregated much of it. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[David Reich]

I'll take a look. But I still believe a lot of what Jack has to say.