Comments on: Who’s turn is to hit the coalface? The Swedes show the way in Professional Association Management and the results are impressive. Let’s take, for once, a glass half full approach. http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2008/11/who%e2%80%99s-turn-is-to-hit-the-coalface-the-swedes-show-the-way-in-professionalassociation-management-and-the-results-are-impressive-let%e2%80%99s-take-for-once-a-glass-half-full-approach/ Global discussion of public relations from local perspectives Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:54:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Toni Muzi Falconi http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2008/11/who%e2%80%99s-turn-is-to-hit-the-coalface-the-swedes-show-the-way-in-professionalassociation-management-and-the-results-are-impressive-let%e2%80%99s-take-for-once-a-glass-half-full-approach/comment-page-1/#comment-1353 Toni Muzi Falconi Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:38:52 +0000 http://www.prconversations.com/?p=485#comment-1353 Markus, for me yours is a very intersting and fascinating comment.... let me tell you why. Some years ago I wrote a paper for the institute for public relations under the title 'how big is pr (and why does it matter?). The economic impact of public relations'. You can find it here http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/how_big_is_public_relations/ Ok. If you accept the basic argument and therefore the parameters I suggest (these are two preconditions that very few agree to follow of course, and for various reasons...) you will see that while the figure of public relators in Sweden estimated by Margaretha Sjoberg is very, very close to those parameters, the figure you indicate for Austria is obviously very much smaller. There are various possible reasons for this gap you denounce. The first is that it could be (and honestly I do not know and of course would be very happy if Margaretha will want to share with us how she arrived at that figure...)that Margaretha read and was convinced by my arguments to adopt those parameters and therefore arrived at that figure. The second is that you also have read that paper and decided it was not convincing and the combination of the two would easily explain the difference in the two estimates. The third, most intriguing and exciting for me, is that Margaretha used other parameters and arrived at the same figure I would have arrived at in adapting my parameters. At the end it is clear that if you adopt my definition (admittedly ample, but only as ample as this blog has been describing since its inception) you will certainly arrive at a figure which is not so different from the Swedish one. I of course realise that if this was true the number of members of the PRVA would appear much much lower than it is. But you can console yourself if you compare your figures with Italy (60 million people, 1.000 members and if you add on the members of other similar associations like agency employees, public sector communicators, internal communicators, political communicators... you do not go anywhere near the level of membership pro/inhabitant of Sweden). Same thing goes for the UK or the USA as I argued in the popst. You are of course quite right to say that professional management of the association is an important enabler for growth, but for me this is often more of an aspirin, of a quick fix, than a necessarily winning solution. In fact it could also have an opposite effect as it often, and when improperly implemented, tends to drive away volunteers which instead are the salt of an association and make the difference from a traditional commercial service operation. Let me add one point. If you accept the premises of that paper and proceed to the evaluation of the economic impact of the profession (and not, mind you, the billing figures of the agencies nor the capital budget figures of the organizations...) but the actual economic impact of the profession per se, you will arrive at a highly relevant figure for Austria which will probably help you to attract the attention of your 'hidden' colleagues and maybe even their entrance in the association..... Margaretha, please help us interpret correctly. Markus, for me yours is a very intersting and fascinating comment…. let me tell you why.
Some years ago I wrote a paper for the institute for public relations under the title ‘how big is pr (and why does it matter?). The economic impact of public relations’.
You can find it here http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/how_big_is_public_relations/
Ok.
If you accept the basic argument and therefore the parameters I suggest (these are two preconditions that very few agree to follow of course, and for various reasons…) you will see that while the figure of public relators in Sweden estimated by Margaretha Sjoberg is very, very close to those parameters, the figure you indicate for Austria is obviously very much smaller.

There are various possible reasons for this gap you denounce.

The first is that it could be (and honestly I do not know and of course would be very happy if Margaretha will want to share with us how she arrived at that figure…)that Margaretha read and was convinced by my arguments to adopt those parameters and therefore arrived at that figure.

The second is that you also have read that paper and decided it was not convincing and the combination of the two would easily explain the difference in the two estimates.

The third, most intriguing and exciting for me, is that Margaretha used other parameters and arrived at the same figure I would have arrived at in adapting my parameters.

At the end it is clear that if you adopt my definition (admittedly ample, but only as ample as this blog has been describing since its inception) you will certainly arrive at a figure which is not so different from the Swedish one.

I of course realise that if this was true the number of members of the PRVA would appear much much lower than it is.

But you can console yourself if you compare your figures with Italy (60 million people, 1.000 members and if you add on the members of other similar associations like agency employees, public sector communicators, internal communicators, political communicators… you do not go anywhere near the level of membership pro/inhabitant of Sweden).
Same thing goes for the UK or the USA as I argued in the popst.

You are of course quite right to say that professional management of the association is an important enabler for growth, but for me this is often more of an aspirin, of a quick fix, than a necessarily winning solution.
In fact it could also have an opposite effect as it often, and when improperly implemented, tends to drive away volunteers which instead are the salt of an association and make the difference from a traditional commercial service operation.

Let me add one point.
If you accept the premises of that paper and proceed to the evaluation of the economic impact of the profession (and not, mind you, the billing figures of the agencies nor the capital budget figures of the organizations…) but the actual economic impact of the profession per se, you will arrive at a highly relevant figure for Austria which will probably help you to attract the attention of your ‘hidden’ colleagues and maybe even their entrance in the association…..

Margaretha, please help us interpret correctly.

]]> By: Markus Pirchner http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2008/11/who%e2%80%99s-turn-is-to-hit-the-coalface-the-swedes-show-the-way-in-professionalassociation-management-and-the-results-are-impressive-let%e2%80%99s-take-for-once-a-glass-half-full-approach/comment-page-1/#comment-1352 Markus Pirchner Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:25:03 +0000 http://www.prconversations.com/?p=485#comment-1352 There's definitely a lot to learn from our Swedish colleagues (and from the various documents on their new website), especially for associations like the Austrian PR Association (PRVA). Though the number of inhabitants is very similar (8.4m in AT, 9.2 in SE) and the GDP per capita is comparable (45k to 43k US-$) the size of the markets for PR seem to differ enormously. If I got the figures right it amounts to 5bn Euros in Sweden, which is approximately 5 times as much as the market in Austria. That's a significant difference, I'd say. It seems to indicate that companies, organisations etc. in Sweden are attributing much higher budgets to PR activities than in Austria. 5000 members, that's a figure the Austrian PR Association can only dream of. Though membership is increasing steadily (and even a bit more rapidly in recent years) we have only managed to attract about 550 members - in 32 years of existance - who "represent" about 1500 PR practitioners in total (there are various types of memberships, e.g. for agencies and institutions; usually not all employees of agencies or in-house PR departments are PRVA members but they follow its professional and ethical guidelines). Though we most probably haven't exhausted the full potential we certainly will never (or at least not in the foreseeable future) reach 5k members. There simply ain't as many people professionally practicing PR in Austria. For me there seem to be some underlying structural differences between PR in Sweden and PR in Austria (which would need some more analysis from my side to fully grasp their scope), but more obviously (for me) it's the professional association management that really makes the difference. SPRA, if I remember correctly, is run by 12 full-time employees, whereas the activities of PRVA rely on the work of volunteers (with the exception of two part-time secretaries). In other words: we haven't reached the tipping point, yet. And it would (and will) be very worthwhile for us to tap the experience and models of other PR Associations. We'll definitely have a close look at the GA initiative for professional association management and will contribute to it whatever we can. Voluntarily :-) There’s definitely a lot to learn from our Swedish colleagues (and from the various documents on their new website), especially for associations like the Austrian PR Association (PRVA).

Though the number of inhabitants is very similar (8.4m in AT, 9.2 in SE) and the GDP per capita is comparable (45k to 43k US-$) the size of the markets for PR seem to differ enormously. If I got the figures right it amounts to 5bn Euros in Sweden, which is approximately 5 times as much as the market in Austria.

That’s a significant difference, I’d say. It seems to indicate that companies, organisations etc. in Sweden are attributing much higher budgets to PR activities than in Austria.

5000 members, that’s a figure the Austrian PR Association can only dream of. Though membership is increasing steadily (and even a bit more rapidly in recent years) we have only managed to attract about 550 members – in 32 years of existance – who “represent” about 1500 PR practitioners in total (there are various types of memberships, e.g. for agencies and institutions; usually not all employees of agencies or in-house PR departments are PRVA members but they follow its professional and ethical guidelines).

Though we most probably haven’t exhausted the full potential we certainly will never (or at least not in the foreseeable future) reach 5k members. There simply ain’t as many people professionally practicing PR in Austria.

For me there seem to be some underlying structural differences between PR in Sweden and PR in Austria (which would need some more analysis from my side to fully grasp their scope), but more obviously (for me) it’s the professional association management that really makes the difference. SPRA, if I remember correctly, is run by 12 full-time employees, whereas the activities of PRVA rely on the work of volunteers (with the exception of two part-time secretaries). In other words: we haven’t reached the tipping point, yet. And it would (and will) be very worthwhile for us to tap the experience and models of other PR Associations.
We’ll definitely have a close look at the GA initiative for professional association management and will contribute to it whatever we can. Voluntarily :-)

]]>