REICH COMMUNICATIONS

Best Careers -- PR Rates High

The annual survey of career prospects published by US News & World Report just came out, and Public Relations ranked #41 overall as a career with good prospects for young people.

The report says the growing popularity of social media is creating demand for specialists who can monitor and interact through social media, and those responsibilities are put under the PR category in many organizations.

PR came in just behind Marketing Manager and ahead of Architect.

The report cites estimates by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that PR employment will grow by 22.5 percent by the end of this decade, with more than 58,000 new PR jobs to be filled.

Aside from good hiring prospects, PR can be fulfilling career.  Despite the bad PR stories told by a guest columnist here recently, PR can be interesting, challenging, fun and financially rewarding.  Very rarely over 40 years in this business have I been bored.  No two days at work are ever the same.  I feel my creative juices are utlized, and I still get a rush when I see the results of my work come across in the form of a good newspaper story or a nice piece on TV or online.

So for young people who are creative, have a way with the written word, and like challenges, PR can be a career to consider. 

In newspapers we trust

 

I came across two stories last week that give me hope that newspapers are not, in fact, a dying breed.

PR man Steve Rubel, writing in Ad Age, says, "The press is a case study in evolution...it has reasserted itself and is stronger than ever."

I'm not sure I'd agree with the "stronger than ever" part, since papers are still losing print circulation and ad revenues, and many continue to cut newsroom staff.  But as Steve points out, newspapers are evolving with the times and many papers -- large and small -- now have more content online than in print.  That online content often includes more than additional print-type stories.  We see video news stories that rival what the local stations and the networks offer. 

The Wall Street Journal's WSJ.com site includes about 40 - 50 new video reports every day.  And the New York Times nytimes.com site includes some great content we don't see in the paper's print editions -- slide shows, in-depth interviews and commentary, and photo essays.  Gannett's Journal News, serving New York's northern suburbs, has a lively site, lohud.com, that includes blogs on a variety of subjects, video reports and hyper-local news and reader chats.

Gannett, like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and, most recently, the Los Angeles Times are among many papers that are trying to monetize the online content in ways beyond advertising, which hasn't yet been able to bring in the big bucks to rival print ad rates.  So they're trying paywalls, usually allowing online readers to get a small number of stories free before asking them to subscribe or pay a per-story charge.  It's too soon to see if this will work successfully, but more papers are moving in that direction.

It's good to see that papers aren't giving up in the face of the changing ways we consume news and information.  Which brings me to the second story I saw about newspapers last week.

Newspapers, according to a report released last week by Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, are the public's most trusted source of news.  The survey shows newspapers lead, although by a small margin, network TV and cable news when it comes to trust in the accuracy of news.

An interesting side note is that young adults ages 18 - 35, the people who grew up with computers and the internet, gave newspapers the best score for trust, although they also rated online news sites as "highly credible."

The survey also shows that the media's frenzy to be first to break news doesn't necessarily earn high marks.  Most respondents said they value accuracy far above immediacy when it comes to news reporting.  They value fact-checking, they say, even as they rush to tune into 24-hour cable or online sites to see the latest.  They'll read newspapers later, it seems, to get it right.

There is still hope.

Weekend Thoughts... Bad PR Stories

Alan Hirsch, a now-retired PR pro and my former boss and partner, offers these thoughts from his years in the PR business.  He calls them bad PR stories, although I'm sure similar cases of bad behavior can be found in any industry.  Bad behavior isn't unique to the PR business.

Here are Alan's stories...

PR people tell a lot of stories.  Some of them are good and some of them are bad.

The following stories are bad.  I wish they would be good, but they are not.  If you are a PR veteran, which means you have worked in the PR industry for at least  5-8 years or more,  then you will be able to add to these stories which only  make you  sick when you think about them.

1.        This story hurts me every time I think about it.  When I had my own PR agency  in NYC for 18 years, two of my best employees got very friendly.  They were both talented and hard workers who  knew how to do the job needed.

After they both left  my firm,  they shared a few  PR accounts.  They were together for at least 10 years and did very good work for their clients. They were legit.  You could call them good friends and associates.

One day friend A asked friend B if he could use his PR Newswire account.  Of course, just pay me back  whatever the cost is, friend B said.  You can determine now what happened.

Friend A decided not to reimburse friend B.  He also decided he would use friend B's PR Newswire account,this time without getting permission from friend  B.   He used $1,400 worth of services, which he didn’t pay for and stuck friend B with the bill, which friend B paid in order to keep his credit clean.  Now, eight years later, friend A still hasn’t reimbursed friend B for the money he laid out for friend A.  

Friend B knows he will never receive the money he laid out for friend A.  He notes this experience not only as a loss of $1400, but as the loss of a supposed friend.  Friend A today does not return phone calls from friend B.  The only thing he does is not pay his debts.  Friend A is a creep, who one day will be called upon to explain his bad behavior. 

By the way, this pathetic, corrupt guy lives in a beautiful joint with his wife and son, belongs to a fancy club and sits on the board of his synagogue. No one knows this person A is a bum and thief, except for friend B.  

2.        Once I had a friend who was good friends with a PR guy from Baltimore, who rose to the highest ranks in the insurance industry.  This guy was at the top of the pyramid.

He went from a PR industry job with a major player to the top job at a top U.S. insurance company. This guy was smart.  This guy was clever.  This guy was looked up to from everyone he met.   He was king of the castle.

He only had one flaw.  He collected autographs.  That's not the flaw.  The flaw was that some of the autographs were obtained from a blind autograph dealer. The PR honcho had a weakness in that he stole autographs from the blind dealers.  No one ever discovered the thefts, so no one ever found out about this disturbing  behavior, except for the thief and my friend, who saw the crook take the items.

3.        Once my PR agency worked for a very big  tobacco account.  We did the job quite well for more than 15 years.   Some problems occurred when the client advised me that they were unhappy with the AE assigned to their account.

I said it won’t be a problem if we have to change the AE on the account.

The client, with his arm around my shoulder, said not to do that.   Don’t worry, the client said.  If there is a problem, you will be the first to know and we will work it out. That was in 1982. 

It was the last time I spoke to this client. We were fired a few months later and it was done by a minor player, who at least had the  courtesy to do it in person in NY.  The guy who had assured me, with his arm around my shoulder, never said peep.

4.        When I was younger, the Carl Byoir agency (largest in the U.S. at the time) told me in December of 1965 they wanted to hire me to work on the Hallmark account.  Or so I thought.  I told them I would love to do that, as I had admired Hallmark for a long time and it would  be a great assignment.   And Kansas City, the location of Hallmark Cards is a great place. The Byoir honcho said he was glad I liked the assignment.

My first day at work at Carl Byoir at 800 2^nd Ave. turned out to be quite a surprise.  They didn’t say Hallmark;  they said Omark.  The difference was that Omark made the saw chain used on chain saws.  A far cry from sentimental greeting cards.

5.        The worst thing I had to do in business was fire a guy with four kids. I liked this guy a lot. That was in 1982.  Now 30 years later, I still can’t get it out of my mind.   It will be something I think about forever.

After about nine months, this guy went on to better things and got a good job with a major agency.  Until then, though, he never told his wife he had been laid off.  He kept coming to the office while he looked for a job.  When he started his new job, he never said goodbye or thanks for the free space we provided for nine months. I didn’t want roses, but goodbye would have been enough.  

I have a lot more bad stories, but I’ve said enough for now.  The objective is to have more good stories than bad ones.  I don’t know if I can say I achieved that in 40 years in the public relations industry.   I don’t know if I achieved anything, other than to survive, which if you think about it is the true objective of this public relations game.

by Alan Hirsch,  president of G+A Communications, 1982 to 1999    

Millennial Momentum

 

In sheer numbers -- 95 million strong -- they will soon eclipse the Baby Boomers.  They'll be taking control of -- or certainly having significant impact on -- the worlds of business and politics.  They'll have change how we teach and learn, and how we entertain ourselves.

They're the Millennial Generation -- young people born between 1982 and 2003.

Millennials have already had an impact on politics in the U.S.  Many came of voting age just as Obama was running for President, and the Millennials are credited for helping push him over the top.  They're sure to be an even bigger force in politics as the younger end of the group gets to vote within ten years.

 

A new book by Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais (Millennial Momentum, Rutgers University Press, US$ 26.95) takes a thorough look at the Millennial generation and comes up with some interesting findings that predict how they will reshape America.  The findings present a hopeful picture for the future, which is encouraging during this downbeat period we're now in.

I found this book while on vacation two weeks ago, and I had planned to bring it home to plod through what I figured would be heavy reading.  Instead, it was an easy and enjoyable read, and I finished it in less than two days while lying on the beach.

The book is based on the premise (backed by research) that roughly every 80 years in the U.S., a generation emerges that brings major change to our nation.  The authors categorize generations by a variety of traits, and the Millennials are what they call a "civic generation" -- one that is group-oriented, as opposed to my fellow Boomers, who've been criticized as being the "me generation."

The book takes us though past generations, examining their traits, beliefs and accomplishments.  Each generation seems to fit into one of four categories: Idealists (Baby Boomers are in the group), Reactives, Civic, and Adaptive. 

Civics, the book says, are generally raised in a protected manner that emphasizes adherance to group norms and social standards.  As adults, they tend to focus on resolving societal challenges and building (or rebuilding) institutions.  They tend to have a strong feeling of optimism that they can bring about positive change, even as they come of age during periods of turmoil and stress (like today's economic distress and political divisiveness).

Demographic researchers call the confluence of a generational change and a drastic altering of the old order a "generational turning," and they point to previous turnings that brought about major change to our nation -- the American Revolution, the Civil War and the New Deal of FDR's presidency.

It's difficult to explain it properly in a few paragraphs here, but the book does a great job of showing how the unique traits of this new generation -- from their diverse ethnicity to their technological sophistication to their acceptance of and need for instant and unfiltered communication -- sets them up to bring great change to our society, including fixing or reshaping some of the institutions many of us have become disenchanted with, from government to business to organized religion to education.

The book covers it all.  While there may not be an eye-opening new discoveries, it puts the generational change into an interesting context.  For marketers, especially, it offers a look at what may or may not engage or motivate this enormous group which is -- or soon will be -- in our sights.

Millennium Momentum is worth a read.

 

Here's a review from the Stand Bookstore site:

In this timely analysis of demographic data, Winograd and Hais (Millennial Makeover) examine the habits, values, and desires of the generation born between 1982 and 2003. Turning away from the apathetic and introverted attitudes of Generation X, the disillusioned idealism of the boomer generation, and the pragmatism of the silent generation, Millennials most resemble the G.I. generation, which supported the New Deal and oversaw a radical reshaping of government's role in improving quality of life in America. Like the G.I.s, Millennials are a "civic generation," one that responds to fear, uncertainty, and doubt by attempting to better the world through public service, personal engagement, and demand for a transparent and responsive government. The most racially diverse and ideologically tolerant population the U.S. has ever known, Millennials are also the best networked group of humans in history. Believing that every consumer choice, every vote, every blog post and tweet matters, young people come of age expecting to be heard and to make change. Although still gaining momentum, Millennial thinking has already proved itself powerful—the networked grassroots organization that elected Barack Obama is the book's most persuasive example. Though general readers might be put off by the academic quality of Winograd and Hais's prose, the book offers important insights into the dynamic, interdependent forces that will shape America's future.

 

 

 

 

Redefining Public Relations: continued...again

The Public Relations Society's (PRSA) search for a new definition of Public Relations seems to be nearing the final stages.

I wrote here earlier about the effort and the first take at possible definitions.   I and many others felt those earlier proposed definitions missed the mark, for a variety of reasons. 

PRSA took the comments that came in and now they've put up three variations for consideration.

They are:

• Public relations is the management function of researching, communicating and collaborating with publics to build mutually beneficial relationships.
• Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.
• Public relations is the strategic process of engagement between organizations and publics to achieve mutual understanding and realize goals.

Of these, my choice is the first. 

My only concern with this is the phrase "mutually beneficial relationships."  Sometimes, the goals of an organization simply may not be something that’s beneficial to others, but a role of PR is to at least create some understanding, possibly in the hope that understanding may change or blunt opposition or criticism.  And in the case of marketing PR, the goal may simply be to create interest in or desire to purchase a product or service.  It's beneficial to the seller, but it may not always be beneficial to the consumer.  Consider marketing PR for tobacco products.  Selling the product is beneficial to the sellers, but we know all too well it is not beneficial -- in fact, it's proven to be harmful -- to those who buy and consume it.

So much for "mutually beneficial."

The PRSA site lists these three definitions and invites us to vote for our favorite.  There is no way, however, to suggest alternates.  The way the survey is set up, you vote for one preference and that's pretty much as far as it goes.

Noemi Pollack, writing on the Pollack PR Marketing Group blog "It's all amatter of judgement" also isn't crazy about the "mutually beneficial" thing.  Pollack nicely sums up the difficulty and frustration with trying to define what we in PR do:

"Defining an entire industry is no easy undertaking, especially when it’s one as wide-ranging and often imprecise as that of public relations.  But I would focus on the fact that we are counselors first and foremost — and that our profession is responsible for helping businesses navigate the many avenues of communication that can prove treacherous, protecting a company’s reputation, brands and assets from negative commentary or perceptions; for leading communication strategies that embrace new and expanded audiences; for evaluating economic factors that can impact a company’s business and executing plans to outthink the competition; and for staying ahead of the curve in this digital age.

Actually, it may take a paragraph…"

Well said.

Let's see what PRSA comes up with.

 

 

 

 

PR Society -- Why not New York?

Jack O'Dwyer, who has been chronicling the PR industry for some 40 years, asks a question in his current online newsletter. 

Why has the Public Relations Society held its national conference in New York City only twice since 1990?  New York, he points out, has, by far, the biggest city chapter of PRS, with 685 members here in the Apple.  The DC chapter, which is ranked at number one, draws members from not only the capitol, but from neighboring Virgina and Maryland.  And New York still is the media capitol of the U.S.

Jack calls out the leaders of the New York chapter for not being aggressive in their pursuit of the national conference.  He also slams the national PRS leadership for not being open -- even to members and chapter heads -- about the process they use to select their conference cities.

I don't know, nor do I care about, the internal politics of PRS and its chapters.  I've stayed away from the organization for many years, since I personally found it to be too political and slanted towards the bigger agencies and the corporate side.  Frankly, the group had little to offer me.

But Jack's column is worth a read.  It would be nice to have the PRS conference in New York a bit more often.  Maybe I'd even join and attend.  Maybe.

Too smart for PR?

 

From across the pond, there’s some discussion

online about the image of PR people as non-

intellectuals who are doers rather than thinkers. 

Heather Yaxley, a British PR practitioner and

educator who is an active contributor to the PR

Conversations blog, asks in her own blog,

“Are you too smart to work in PR?”

She decries what she sees as a decline in

emphasis on intellectual capacity as a key element

for everyday work in public relations. 

“I’m beginning to believe,” she writes, “that the

majority of modern (PR) practitioners view PR

as a non-intellectual trade, where craft skills count

most, along with a friendly personality and a

preference to spend time churning out releases

and Tweets rather than thinking about anything
more important they should be doing.”

In my experience, actually, I’ve found that PR

often requires solid strategic thinking.  It can be a

lot more than press releases and parties, but

unfortunately those small slices of what some of

us do in PR is too often how our entire field is seen

by others.  Part of the reason is that’s generally
how PR people are portrayed on TV and in the

movies, like the character Samantha Jones in

“Sex and the City” – a party thrower who knows

media people and calls in favors to media to do,

or not do, stories on her clients.

The heavy thinking and development of strategy

just isn’t as sexy to portray in films, so the focus

gets put on the “glamorous” aspects of what some

of us do.  So what type of young person does that

image attract?  Kids who want to throw great parties

and hobnob with celebrities and celeb wannabees. 

And the smarter young people simply may not be

attracted to that sort of work, and we’re left with
less than the cream of the crop looking at PR as a
possible career choice.

We can’t control who popular media portray us,

but we can, as an industry, get accurate information

out there about what we really do in our jobs. 

It’s something I’d love to see PRSA (Public Relations

Society of America) and other trade groups take on as

an ongoing project.  And better education -- at the

college level for starters, and also within PR agencies –

can help create a more realistic understanding of what

we do and what skills are needed.

So if bright young people think

they are too smart to work in PR,

it's really our own fault.  It's up to
us to change that perception. 


Of note:  Heather tells me
of a new site that is a
collaborative project by PR
educators and practitioners,
seeking to create a resource
of how PR is depicted in film, TV and books worldwide.