A “conversational” documentary film review by Judy Gombita and Madeline Lunney

Question 13 of our PRoust Questionnaire:

“Has a novel, film, play or other work of fiction ever influenced you as a PR practitioner?”

Answer: Pink Ribbons, Inc.

In early January, we were invited to a private screening of the National Film Board’s feature documentary, Pink Ribbons, Inc. (which premiered at TIFF 2011), directed by Léa Pool and produced by Ravida Din (NFB executive producer, feminist and a breast cancer survivor).

With commentary from a host of North American activists, medical and philanthropy subject experts (primarily female), this powerful film narrates the devastating reality of breast cancer: its effects on sufferers, lack of real knowledge about its causes, current treatments, plus questions about where the enormous funds raised are allocated. This is set against the manufactured messages and “breast cancer culture” of hope and optimism, promoted by charitable foundations. Also explored is the darker side of cause marketing practised by some corporations.

Following is a tête-à-tête about the success (or not) of the film’s narrative and key messages, including how it has impacted us, professionally and personally.

Pink Ribbons, Inc. — Rage against the marketing machine’s “shiny, pink success story”

Judy Gombita (JG): Madeline, we first met because of a shared love of documentaries—you with your work with the Hot Docs festival regarding documentary filmmaking for NGOs and me being a long-time Doc Soup subscriber.

What do you think are the key elements needed to make a successful documentary film? And does Pink Ribbons, Inc. achieves these goals?

Madeline Lunney (ML): The best documentaries engage viewers in a type of exploration guided by the filmmakers, so you gain an insider perspective on events and people. This translates into insights you didn’t have before seeing the film.

I think the strength of Pink Ribbons, Inc. is that it deals with the politics of cause marketing while featuring personal perspectives. It builds powerfully to highlight the issues related to a saturation of marketing, with pink ribbons on everything from shampoo to light bulbs to cars. This contrasts with the stories of real women dealing with breast cancer. There’s a stark disparity between the playful, sometimes silly, events that sponsors were holding to run or walk for the cure, and the dignity of women dealing with stage four breast cancer, which they were told could not be cured. I’m still thinking about those women and what they said about their disease being used for someone to profit.

What did you particularly appreciate about the film, Judy?

JG: For me a documentary’s narrative has to have consistency and balance, both in terms of diversity of voices and viewpoints and at least some objectivity. For the most part I think Pink Ribbons, Inc., does this, although obviously it is weighted more towards an indictment of current practices and the manufactured “pretty and feminine” culture that has grown, rather than support and praise for the architects of fundraising efforts.

The articulate use of language was really enlightening, both from the activists and medical professionals and even from the foundation and corporation leaders. Despite myself, I had to admire how relatively convincing the individuals could sound, even when defending a dodgy partnership, like the founder and CEO of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s support of KFC’s “Pink Buckets” campaign (introducing the “healthier” grilled chicken)—how could she not notice it was a “shocking disconnect?” Or (now deceased) Evelyn Lauder waxing lyrically about lighting up 38 major monuments in pink floodlights, around the world (i.e., its Breast Cancer Research Foundation’s Global Illumination Campaign). I mean, really, how does this admittedly pretty practice “raise awareness” about breast cancer?

The film has caused me to question (and adjust, personally) words in the common vernacular relating to cancer:

• “battling” breast cancer
• [the Ford] “warriors” campaign
• “survivors”
• “fell victim to” and so on.

Even when I was drafting the introduction, I paused about what word to choose. I decided “sufferers” was the most honest—because these women are suffering through “slash, burn and/or poison” (i.e., surgery, radiation and/or chemotherapy) treatments, as per Dr. Susan Love’s description. I think it was Barbara Ehrenreich who emphasized she hadn’t battled anything—she simply showed up for all of her scheduled appointments to have poison dripped into her, then suffered through the after effects in isolation. I really appreciated her matter-of-fact perspective and minimalist, non-heroic commentary throughout the film; she’s probably a breast cancer cause marketer’s worst nightmare.

IV League stage four support group.

And, yes, the most poignant speakers of the entire film came from the IV League stage four support group. Although they are all living on borrowed time and mainly working to support one another, I think it was a tremendous gift to the film’s audience that they are given voice.

The activists made me angry; the stage four women made me weep. This was because of their resolute support of one another when no other options exist and also their quiet defiance about not being used or portrayed as victims. Speaking of language with impact: “…our disease is being used for people to profit—and that’s not OK.” The October Breast Cancer awareness campaign is designed to be “comforting.” “As long as it [cause marketing] works they are going to keep using it.”

Madeline, did you notice any words or descriptions in particular?

ML: I was struck by the statement early on that women used to march in the streets (to protest and celebrate) and now we don pink T-shirts in support of what are essentially marketers’ campaigns. It is true we’re encouraged to buy into a kind of sisterhood that has grown up around cancer diagnosis, particularly around breast cancer.

On the one hand, it’s wonderful for women to feel supported because others are experiencing the same thing. Plus that there are places to turn for answers, other than the Western medical professionals. I do believe people should be given options and sign-on to actions to deal with illness in meaningful ways.

However, the “tyranny of cheerfulness” that one interviewee spoke about belies the serious nature of a cancer diagnosis and, shown so poignantly in the film, excludes women who are not “survivors,” or who don’t feel cheered up by buying a pink teddy bear.

One woman said that when she sees the pink ribbon logo she sees “evil”. Of course this is a bold statement about corporate greed and hypocrisy. To me, the pink ribbon cheapens the efforts of people and organizations who are genuinely offering support to those living with cancer.

Judy, what did you think of the technique of using multiple interview subjects?

JG: I thought it was incredibly effective, especially in regards to demonstrating quintessentially female “communication” techniques, in terms of exploring a subject thoroughly, research for proof, analysis and trying to reach a consensus and call to action through persuasive language—fact based, but also intuitively and emotionally driven, in a positive sense.

Although in many ways it’s a very female-centric film (subject matter, director, producer and the vast majority of subject experts), I believe it will appeal to men, for a variety of reasons. First and foremost is because almost all men have been impacted by breast cancer in terms of their mothers, sisters, wives, daughters or work colleagues and friends, and some of them have participated in activities for the cure. Secondly, because I think it is a really thoughtful exploration with all of those interview subjects detailing how women think and feel, whether it be the learned medical professionals, researchers or activists, or the testimonials (i.e., articulation) and the emotional response of the participants in the efforts. This means that men can better appreciate what the important women in their lives are going through should a diagnosis of breast cancer be received.

The marketing aspect of the “cause” may be enraging, but I don’t think anyone will walk away from this film feeling like the individuals (females and males) who walk or run for breast cancer, etc., do it for anything but the best of intentions to play a part in “beating” breast cancer through funds raised. And the sense of accomplishment and gratification about doing something good is palpable.

The use of interview subjects is quite common in documentary films. How do you rate the efforts in Pink Ribbons, Inc., Madeline?

ML: I, too, thought the filmmaker did a fantastic job using interviews to tell the story, including many activists calling attention to the hijacking of the cause, and others committed to the fundraising efforts and corporate campaigns.

The sections with Barbara Brenner (executive director of Breast Cancer Action) were particularly powerful when juxtaposed with the images of the fundraising efforts, in which people appeared to be oblivious to the issues discussed in the film. The interview with Nancy Brinker (CEO of the Susan G. Komen Foundation) clearly showed her passion for the cause, but also a commitment to accepting funds from any company willing to put a pink ribbon somewhere.

I also liked the commentary by Samantha King, on whose book Pink Ribbons Inc. is based. She pulled things together a few times during the film.

Judy, do you think some companies came out looking worse than others?”

JG: There were two categories of “cause marketers” who came across as distasteful. The first group is relatively innocuous—the companies who mainly look at it as an opportunity to cash in on the “pinkwashing” halo to sell more goods or services (a bit of a dupe to consumers willing to shell out funds for pink beribboned products), such as Yoplait or American Express (that campaign was particularly disingenuous from a fundraising perspective, so I’m glad it was exposed by the activists such as Judy Brady and halted).

The second and worse category comprises companies whose products might actually be contributors to various forms of cancer—pharmaceuticals, cosmetic companies, automotive manufacturers, etc.—who are hiding behind fundraising foundations and efforts. Sure, they are raising millions of dollars, but we aren’t seeing any evidence of them actually voluntarily changing the “formulas” or workplaces of what they make and sell, to stop the possible encroachment and diagnosis of breast cancer at the source: their core offerings.

Fundraising is really part of your bailiwick, Madeline. What are your thoughts?

ML: Consumer-oriented philanthropy has been around for a while, but with diminishing foundation and government funds, non-profits are challenged to explore if and when they are willing to “partner” with corporations. The film contributes to the discussion by highlighting the lack of funding for prevention versus treatment, to the benefit of donors (as you mentioned, such as pharmaceutical companies). And then there are the questions about lack of research into the environmental causes of cancer, and the campaign support of companies that are polluting the environment or of cosmetic companies that include ingredients known to be toxic in their products.

A central theme of the film is that cause marketing attached to pink ribbons is used to “numb and dumb” people into believing they are participating in something real, while big companies promote their products and relatively little research into prevention is carried out. Would it feel better if more had been accomplished? Absolutely. But I’d still be left wondering about who is benefiting the most….

For me, the film delivered a powerful message that made me feel “pissed off” (as Eleanor Brenner predicted) now that I know more about the marketing machine behind various pink ribbons efforts.

What about you, Judy, did anything in particular enrage you?

JG: We’ve both alluded to the corporations where evidence suggests they are potentially doing more to harm women with their (toxic)  products than good in fundraising efforts. That is infuriating. But I think a huge finger should be pointed at both the official charitable organizations and the foundation efforts about where and how the millions of dollars (and other currencies) funds raised are being spent. I want people to go and see this film themselves (if possible) or purchase it later when it’s available as a DVD, so let’s not give away the actual percentages.

Suffice it to say that the percentage given to both prevention research and (possible) environmental causation research is absolutely pitiful. Who appears to be benefiting the most from the funds raised for research? Pharmaceutical companies (or equipment manufacturers) whose next-generation products merely prolong the lives of women with breast cancer a bit longer….

The film focused primarily on North America, but there were some international issues mentioned. Madeline, were there any that resonated with you?”

ML: There were a few:

• an event in Egypt, where the Susan G. Komen Foundation seemed to be exporting a Western approach to cause marketing
• the reminder that it’s mainly Caucasian, North American women being studied
• the lack of sharing research globally; and
• mention of the practice of shipping antiquated medical machinery and ineffective cancer treatments overseas.

Judy, did you have any criticisms of the Pink Ribbons, Inc. documentary?

JG: I really only have one major criticism. As you know, I first saw this documentary during TIFF 2011. At my first screening, something bothered me about the interview with Carol Cone, vice-chair at Edelman Good Purpose and known as “the mother of cause marketing.” So I tested my reaction at the January screening. My criticism: I believe she was sold a false bill of goods in terms of what the film was about—an indictment of cause marketing, not the true or at least aspirational benefits that can be attained. Although her screen time was limited, she was quite passionate and appeared thoroughly genuine about building partnerships between companies and social issues, in terms of her words and body language. If I’m correct, that’s a bit disingenuous.

If you recall, I asked after our screening if Carol Cone had seen the film yet and what she thought about it. People from the Edelman Toronto office were invited to an earlier screening, but I suspect Carol Cone had not seen it. Quite frankly, I feel bad for her. There are a lot of other spokespeople and companies I’d indict before her and Edelman Good Purpose.

And not really a criticism, but I would have liked more screen team for environmental cause researchers such as Dr. James Brophy and Dr. Margaret Keith and their work with the The Plastics Focus Group women. Of course maybe there’s not that much research being done, given the lack of funding devoted to this area….

Is there anything you wish had been done differently, Madeline?

ML: At points in the film I felt uneasy that individuals shown at various fundraising efforts—women and men—might feel somewhat foolish about the way they were portrayed, especially as there were no in-depth interviews with these people. Maybe they are aware of the cause marketing machinery and its huge contradictions, and would have explained their support in a way we hadn’t yet heard.

However, I also get it that the message of the film is that people can put their energies behind other expressions of solidarity with loved ones, and more effective efforts to find a cure. And of course these people were out in public, doing and saying what they believe, and the filmmaker simply recorded this for us.

I think it’s important for people to be informed and to critically explore the causes they support. This is a film I hope people will see so that we can continue the debate.

JG: I agree with you, Madeline. This is an important documentary for a really wide audience, but one that should particularly resonate with communicators and corporate social responsibility advocates.

So it’s two (big) thumbs up for Pink Ribbons, Inc.

Useful Links

Watch the official trailer (which really captures the “essence” of the film) and see the Canadian release dates and locations. (In most Canadian cities the release date is February 3, 2012.)

USA Playdates (primarily film festivals).

Pink Ribbons Inc.: The people behind the film

Images used with the authorization and permission of the National Film Board. Photo credits: Léa Pool.

Guest post by Tyler Orchard

Social media engagement: The PR2.0 shift for politics

Whether you work in the private or public sector, social media and PR2.0 have evolved into something more than just another set of communications vehicles. Perhaps several years ago taking the plunge into Twitter or Facebook would be a choice one could make based on simple calculations of return on investment. However, in today’s closely connected world, being involved in social media is more of an expectation, especially for younger PR practitioners.

Much like consumer-based companies, people involved in politics are constantly searching for new ways to connect with their stakeholders. Many of the social media techniques are seamlessly transferable between the public and private sectors. However, I find digital engagement has not been leveraged to the same extent in the public sector as it has in the business or non-profit worlds.

“Engagement through social media” is a phrase we often use, but do not truly understand, including what that means or how to achieve it. I point you to Pierre Killeen of Thornley Fallis, who provides a good introduction and working definition of online participation and engagement.

Social media advantages

Killeen notes that the various social media networking platforms, coupled with an abundance of online media sources, allow people to express their views and opinions in real time. And these viewpoints have an immense reach. People are closely connected and information, positive or negative, is transferred from one person to another at speeds we cannot even begin to fathom. Not to mention journalists and media outlets have placed significant attention on social media conversations and sentiment around the public sector—attention that makes those who tend to be risk averse to shy away from social media all together.

The expectation of social media fluency has “forced” political officials to embark on a highly publicized and, at times, rocky learning endeavour. This expectation has arisen out of documented benefits of social media and its widespread popularity. Digital ads have skyrocketed within political campaigns over the years, because of their advantages over traditional forms of media (i.e., highly targeted, more accurate data). In my opinion, the public sector’s transition from conventional forms of communication to social media has been at times hastily implemented in response to this extensive technological shift within society.

There may be more emphasis placed on being in the space rather than using it to its full potential.

Personal experience

In my position, I have witnessed the apprehension towards social media that is sometimes encountered in the public sector. I find it tends to be a precarious environment in regards to engaging our publics on certain issues. This hesitation stems from the natural desire not to instigate or engage in conversations with the potential for conflict. In the public forums of social media, the traditional concern is even more pronounced.

I have experienced a wide variety of issues discussed via Twitter and Facebook and, as one would expect, there are always differing viewpoints—some of them hostile and seemingly unchangeable. This makes engagement not only difficult, but also raises concerns about vulnerability.

Occasionally content moderation is a necessity (for example, hate speech or libel), but my aim is to ensure any filtering practice is minimal and not self-serving, as I have personally witnessed how the public reacts to unconcealed manipulation.

Regardless of natural apprehensions encountered in the workplace, I attempt to practice what I preach through the implementation of a detailed engagement policy and protocol. I have experienced and learned how the community reacts and perceives information in 140 characters. It is important to note and acknowledge that public sentiment is influenced by internal and external forces that constantly redefine conversations within this space.

Through trial and, of course, error, we are learning how to effectively mitigate conflict and potentially damaging situations through content creation and awareness of the public’s sentiments or emotions that may be attached to certain topics and issues.

Social media content

When it comes to Canadian politics, I find the most productive conversations (across party lines) tend to revolve around topics that offer something of substance for the public. Value-added content provides stakeholders with the opportunity to advance the conversation, as well as take something away—be it new information, clarification or descriptions.

These topics may include, for example, stimulus budgetary allocations for local projects and initiatives. Localized content appears to have the ability to re-shape the relationship and conversation with publics on a general level.

The more contentious topics that occur share a common element of pronounced partisanship.

An optimal example would be the omnibus crime bill recently introduced by the majority Conservative Government. A topic such as this contains significantly differing viewpoints. It was also highly publicized and criticized by the majority of mainstream media outlets, especially those with a more centralist or left-wing orientation.

Media portrayals can ignite conversations and, in some circumstances, a revolt. These types of controversial topics within federal politics create an environment that is defined by clear partisan lines and debate. In turn, social media provides Canadians with platforms to share their views. These perceptions are then shared directly with elected representatives and other publics—a process that lifts the veil of anonymity and separation.

Demographics

In my observation, demographics active in social media are uniquely diverse. It would appear that younger Canadians are more vocal (i.e., unfiltered opinion), largely due to the generational popularity of this form of discourse. Whether the online activity translates to offline action (such as voting in elections or activism) is less clear.

Gen Y and X might be the most “visible” in the space, however, an increasing number of groups and individuals, across professions, age groups and genders, have begun to embrace social media as a clear line of communication with their elected representatives.

I witness more activist-styled groups, as well as older Canadians, using social media in part because of its availability, simplicity and power. Communication platforms, notably Twitter and Facebook, have re-shaped the traditionally distant relationship between politics and publics.

Learnings

My hands-on experience with social media and politics has been interesting and educational, particularly when translating academic theoretical concepts into practical usage. Social media has redefined how views are shared. It is a forum that is as unequivocally beneficial as it is dangerous. In this I mean it offers a level of transparency and vulnerability that was previously unavailable.

As I have experienced both the advantages and the perils of social media within politics, I attempt to implement cogent policies and rigorous processes that align with Terry Flynn’s detailing of the vision and course of action behind the creation of the Flynn, Gregory, Valin definition of public relations for CPRS. His A defining moment in public relations guest post recently came to my attention and it spoke to me, as both my professional position and personal leanings are grounded in reputation and relationship management, two-way symmetrical communication and serving the public’s best interests, both literally and figuratively.

Social media, in my eyes, are channels and tools that best help to promote the democratic principles that are so vital to the political landscape, whether in Canada or other parts of the world.

Understanding the space

I believe it is important to understand the conversations that take place on a daily basis within this social world. It is not enough to only use social media at times of convenience. Rather, it should be acknowledged that an investment of resources is required to truly connect with those looking for information and/or engagement, both known and unknown.

Authenticity is paramount

Leveraging social media should be done in the proper manner. Talking points and convoluted statements that resemble a “cut and paste” from a policy docket, in my opinion, do not engage people—neither does a heavy reliance on outbound marketing and self-promotion. It is about making a true connection with your publics in meaningful ways; a process that cannot solely be on your terms and conditions. Anything less is easily identifiable and has a tendency to stifle progress, permanently.

Openness

I believe a social media and PR2.0 strategy in the public sector should be based on transparency, two-way conversation and openness. Operating in a way that offers people the opportunity to engage organically with their elected representatives is something that is achieved by consciously practising undeniable veracity and unconditional dialogue, at least in regards to those areas on the public record relating to access, process, truth and disclosure. This may see simple, but we see limited examples of this ideology practised in the real world.

Finally, stakeholders are expected to be treated like human beings, not a placid audience.

Clarity

Content is king—this we know. We have heard professionals speak at length about the importance of creative content. In social media, content is the very essence of your being, including:

• What you say
• How you say it
• How it is perceived and consumed

All are very important points to keep in mind.

Regurgitating information or talking points are not great examples of captivating or productive content. PR revolves around generating substance that is accessible for consumption and commentary by the media or the public. The same applies for social media. Creativity that is grounded in the understanding of your public’s needs is the Queen to the Content King.

Value

Creative content is an essential element of any PR and social media strategy, but creativity has its limits. Value-added content tends to propagate increased engagement, sharing and discussion. I have found it to be important to develop a succinct messaging strategy that re-shapes certain issues and information in a way that provides your known or unknown publics and/or communities with something of use. Before disseminating any communication via social media, ask yourself: “Why would anyone want to read or share this?”

I believe it is important to take an objective view of your communication before sharing it with the world. Be a harsh critic. Adding value in terms of tips, initiatives and answers relating to government programs is a great starting point, but further value is found in endorsement, civilized debate and sharing of outside information (i.e. not defined solely by politics). This is just as true in politics as it is in a social enterprise.

Build your community

Social media, in its most basic form, comprises platforms that connect people. In the political world this connection is invaluable. I tend to believe that the focus should be placed on grassroots connections relating to issues that concern stakeholders. It is an experience that allows one to discover relevant conversations and become imbedded and invested in those discussions.

Social media is a tool that enables our public service to give back—and receive—in ways that shape our perception and understanding of the world around us. It is a method to create, contribute and reinforce value in the communities that we live and work in—not a self-serving promotion machine. Elected representatives investing, listening and taking part in such discussions where appropriate is vital.

The future

Without a firm understanding of these key points and suggestions some political “actors” may continue to stand on the outside of the conversation. A disconnect continues between the public and most political representatives, because at times the latter still views social media as an outbound communications vehicle. Vigorous counsel might be needed to guard against or resist this temptation.

Based on experience to date, transparency, authenticity, unconditional openness and value-added dialogue may overcome any hesitation to engage, mainly because it connects with people on a personable level. I believe it comes down to working to identify who your publics are, then sincerely taking steps to listen and learn. We tend to forget that discourse shapes so much in our world, even in the political realm.

I continue to strive to make a difference in this space by pursuing a transparent and authentic social media presence. There is a complex relationship that occurs between politics and publics. In my opinion, success hinges on the ability to empathize with your publics and candidly listen to their ideas and perceptions. The pursuit of active engagement is not a simple task as publics at times remain unwilling to partake in conversations across a wide variety of topics. Other dialogue that is grounded in negative sentiment remains a distinct element of this space, as well as an impediment to overcoming heightened trepidation of vulnerability. Limitations present themselves to those operating in this space. However, I believe it is important to acknowledge certain trends and adjust any subsequent communications strategy accordingly.

It also should be noted that I do struggle between how this medium can be used to increase interaction yet still leveraged to serve internal goals, as sometimes what works externally is not desired internally.

Finally, I should note that social media in today’s reformed political landscape has been a vital element in election campaigns. In my opinion this digital tool has become an innovative and highly tactical aspect of any election strategy. Whether you agree with attack ads or that style of political messaging approach, social media has redefined the environment that we operate in. It is worth noting that the Conservative Party took full advantage of this tactical shift and thus was able to influence public sentiment and national mood through unique PR2.0 approaches. These strategies garnered wide-spread attention, criticism and discussion; key elements that defined its success.

Where can social media take this sector and how can PR2.0 shape the connection between the public and their elected representatives?

____________________________________________________________________________________

Tyler Orchard, MA, is a Toronto-based director of communications and PR for a Canadian Member of Parliament (MP). He holds a master’s degree in public policy and public relations from the University of Guelph. This unique program emphasized a core set of skills in public relations, economics, research methodology and policy analysis, as well as a firm grounding in theoretical literature. Tyler Orchard completed his thesis on the public relations strategies employed by political and private sector entities throughout the procurement of the JSF F-35 Fighter jets Canada. This research was augmented by an analysis of the economic and procurement policy present in this ongoing multinational procurement program.

Tyler considers himself a lifelong student of social media. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn, or email him directly. Check out his blog, Talking Points.

‘Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge’ – Wikipedia’s blackout protest statement is a reminder of the value and reliance placed on repositories of online information.  How many of us turn to Google, Wikipedia, digital dictionaries, social media or online news sources routinely when we want to know something? 

The English-speaking student population is apparently distraught that its primary place for ‘cut and paste’ assignments is offline for a day.  The Digital Natives haven’t been so upset since BBM crashed last October. 

This might seem amusing, but does illustrate that knowledge management should be a key responsibility for PR practitioners.  ‘Imagine an Organization without Knowledge – Imagine a World without PR’ could be our mantra.

I came into public relations from a job as a research analyst, so my approach has always been to collate information, turn it into knowledge and gain insight., which I can then translate in communications with the media and direct with publics.  I’ve also sought to build networks of contacts on the basis that if I don’t know something, I know someone who does.  Thirdly, I’ve sought to be a reliable source of knowledge about things, people and public relations.

My belief is that for  public relations to act as a strategic function, it needs to demonstrate competency in analysing issues and opportunities in order to recommend responses that contribute towards the achievement of organizational goals. The knowledge base of PR practitioners will not be respected if it is based predominantly on personal experience, intuition, common sense, methodologically-weak research or habitual practice.

Going further, I advocate that PR practitioners should be managers of organizational knowledge as a strategic resource.  As well as nurturing knowledge internally, we need to look beyond organizational boundaries as knowledge is increasingly co-constructed via the internet (Phillips and Young 2009).

Our knowledge management strength lies in the social capital inherent in the organization’s reputation and relationships. This suggests, for example, the traditional PR contact book has strategic value if developed into an intelligent contact management system. 

Drawing on Bourdieu’s capital typology, the PR function offers value to an organization in terms of:

Knowledge capital

• practitioner expertise and competencies
• maintenance of current and archival sources
• procedural knowledge (eg of financial or political processes or how traditional/online media work)
• reputation management (professional standing, sector expertise, opinion leadership and competent spokespeople)
• knowledge of networks supporting co-orientation, alliance building and other PR strategies

Social capital

• networks of direct and indirect relationships at the individual, functional and organizational levels
• capital balances built within exchange and communal relationships
• formal and informal obligations in relationships
• tangible and intangible benefits arising from enhancing relationships through communications
• comparative information regarding similar organizations and wider society

Although the value of knowledge is constantly changing (particularly as it becomes out of date increasingly fast), knowledgeable people have organizational value, especially if they are able to interrogate, analyse, and interpret data to create new knowledge.  

Which brings me back to online knowledge.  Technological developments enable others to take information about our organizations and reconstruct it, sort it, represent it, and decide whether or not to use or recommend it.  One issue arising from moves towards providing personalised search results, is that it will become increasingly difficult for PR practitioners to know what information exists online about organizations, let alone what is being provided to users.  How can you correct misconceptions when searches provide information that supports what a user already knows and does online?

According to Hendler and Berners-Lee, the future will involve people, individually and collectively, immersing themselves in “the accumulated knowledge and the constant interactions of humankind”.  My understanding is this involves empowering people whose interactions contribute towards a global information space, rather than them passively receiving information created by others.

I don’t pretend to fully know what this means, but I know that it is something I need to know more about.  I suspect that nurturing knowledge is not going to be worrying about an entry on Wikipedia or even trying to optimise a Google search going forward.  Public relations has a job to do here in grasping what the future of knowledge may be, and how it can help organizations realise the capital that new knowledge contains.  So I’ll end with a recap of that mantra: ‘Imagine an Organization without Knowledge – Imagine a World without PR’.

John Paluszek, “From The ‘Harmonious Society’ to the Harmonious Global Society” July 2011, China International Public Relations Society, Beijing

Public diplomacy: a higher calling for public relations

Guest post by John Paluszek, APR, Fellow PRSA

It is not hyperbolic to say it:

Public relations professionals now have an epic opportunity to serve the global society and thereby win new appreciation of our profession.

In fact, some are already well into that mission.

Let’s quickly examine the case for this admittedly bold assertion.

The “case” is a continuum, ranging from Harold Burson talking to the Soviets in Moscow in 1988, all the way to Toni Muzi Falconi’s recent guest blog post on PR Conversations,  summarizing the first Global Congress for Muslim Public Relations Practitioners—with many “stops” and elements in between.

“Mr. Burson meets the Soviets”…and onward

President Ronald Reagan in his December 23, 1988, letter:

This is simply to thank you for all you’ve done for America by fostering private sector initiatives.… I’ve always believed government could draw on the counsel of private citizens who had the knowledge and expertise to solve problems and who would willingly share them at no cost to the taxpayers…. You have given invaluable advice about public relations…. I salute you for proving so well the private sector’s capabilities.

Harold Burson had just led a group of about a dozen US public relations executives (including me) in a series of Washington, DC and Moscow meetings with our putative Soviet counterparts in an exchange of views and experiences. The Soviets were led by Alexander Yakovlev, the chief of the USSR’s Communist Party ideology and considered to be the intellectual force behind Mikhail Gorbachev’s reform program of glasnost and perestroika.

Did we help change the world, even a bit? We’ll never know, but it’s just possible. For example:

Fast forward to Stockholm, Sweden 2010 and the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management’s Sixth World Public Relations Forum. Klaus Schwab, eponymous founder and executive chair of the globally influential World Economic Forum and a forum keynote speaker, encouraged our “higher calling”:

In a complex network future, public relations must build trust and create sustainable communities…public relations [has] become even more crucial….provided global and other issues are addressed in the framework of the common interest of all stakeholders.

Having visited with colleagues around the world—particularly in Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia—in Beijing last July, at the 20^th anniversary of the China International Public Relations Society, we discussed, “From The ‘Harmonious Society’ to the Harmonious Global Society’” and a short time earlier, in Helsinki, “The New Global CSR Business Model—Good News for Public Relations Professionals”—a derivative of diplomat Vernon Walters’ famous counsel:

“Let us make the world so economically interdependent that war will go out of style.”

And, coming full circle, in December 2011, three Global Alliance leaders were key presenters at the Kuala Lampur First Global Congress for Muslim Public Relations Practitioners, “The Voice of Moderation and Harmony.” Toni Muzi Falconi’s bottom-line reflection on the congress:

“…the relationship between Islam and human sciences and PR and communication is strong and could well become a major component of global public relations’ curricula.”

The new global zeitgeist: epic opportunity

Rarely, if ever, has the global intellectual, moral and cultural climate so coalesced in accord with public relations philosophy and principles. Technological progress has always influenced zeitgeist; now, the constant evolution and the sociological dynamism of social media has become an epic catalyst.

As a result, international relations—and international relationships—are increasingly dependent on “public diplomacy”, i.e., mainly people-to-people communications and interactions gradually building mutual understanding.

This “public diplomacy” is, at root—and at last—public relations writ large.

Today, many diplomats and geopolitical experts have co-opted this principle in emphasizing “soft power” and “smart power” in international relations. Scott Cutlip and Allen Center, authors of the widely respected, Effective Public Relations, told us that all professions must have a social purpose and that, ultimately, public relations has as its social purpose harmony.

Bravo!

And now, no doubt related, something quite significant seems to have entered the global ether. Put crudely, it is “the vox populi” on steroids.

From Tahrir Square to the many “Occupy” sites (and, most recently, in Moscow and villages in China!) the energy and yearnings of a “new generation” (yes, young people, but not only the younger generations)—wedded to the new information technologies—articulate a common, fundamental search for greater social justice, freedom, equality and “voice.”

These proliferating demands (sometimes unfocused) for dialogue, transparency, trust and accountability—as well as for an improved standard of living and quality of life—now confront not only governments but also corporations and other institutions around the world. This, when ideas travel globally in an instant, when social media produces ferment for exchanges that have impact, regardless of origin.

It is a context in which—over time—cultures will develop, societies will evolve and nations will change. Public relations principles and professionals—both practitioners and educators—can help.

What is to be done?

Importantly, this public service “higher calling” shouldn’t be seen as in any way mutually exclusive with, or a distraction from, the myriad of contemporary services public relations professionals now provide all over the world, helping to build or maintain reciprocal relationships with  the stakeholders of virtually every organization and institution in modern society.

In fact, in an inversion of the “public diplomacy” model, such client service itself can sometimes edge the global society toward harmony. The example with which I’m most familiar is my employer Ketchum’s transparency counsel for Chinese companies, partially or totally government owned, that seek to “go public” with initial stock offerings on Western exchanges. These companies benefit from exposure to a new, necessary degree of transparency even as the political-economic system in China is nudged, in fits and starts, toward a variant of democratic capitalism that would make Chairman Mao spin in his grave.

Our senior executives might well ponder that in a number of countries, many accomplished lawyers have long been high-level participants in government, sometimes pro bono and temporarily, other times as departmental ministers or cabinet members. In the United States, there is a tradition of such patriotic service which has valued legal expertise as well as the wisdom of life experience—the highly influential “The Wise Men” of the last century.

With effective two-way communication and harmony so vital in international relations today, is it not time for the public relations equivalent—“The Wise Women and Men”? Of course, we should be invited to undertake that mission.

There is much to be done at other levels and quadrants of the profession as well. It is advocacy—that is, advocacy for the very concept of “public diplomacy” in any of its iterations, and support for the many organizations—large and small, non-government and government—dedicated to this mission.

Personal experience

I have found inspiration and a rewarding pro bono involvement in this space as an advocate and adviser for the international civil society organization, Bridging the Divide. This international justice and peace organization links civil society groups in the West and Middle East/North Africa mainly through new information technology and on-the-ground services. With a diverse network of local partner organizations in the Middle East and the Caucasus Region, it has just completed a study of means of improving Turkish-Armenian relations.

David Holdridge, Bridging the Divide’s founder, has articulated the opportunity for greater global harmony quite impressively:

“Sovereignty is not what it used to be…. Now the technologies and a youth fed up with war and despair are silently, but inexorably, creating a union…. They are, in historic proportions, going online. They are accelerating daily the trade in ideas over the World Wide Web.”

In another context, Holdridge recently wrote,

“I would bet that the key words of the century ahead will be “global, “participatory” and “modern”…. I believe [this] has a certain inevitability, albeit with the commensurate pain which always accompanies great change.”

A “To Do” list

To be sure, many of our colleagues are now fully engaged in the cause of improved international relations, as staffers and leaders at multilateral organizations, including the United Nations, The World Bank and many regional, national and international civil society groups such as Bridging the Divide.

But there is much to be done by the many who, even in the midst of private sector public relations careers, could respond to the “higher calling.” In addition to the proposed patriotic service of “The Wise Women and Men” echelon, international civil society organizations such as Bridging the Divide need pro bono expertise to generate exposure and support for their missions.

Our educational institutions can also play a vital role, doing what they do best—conducting research on “soft power” (i.e., public diplomacy) case histories and teaching this discipline. Syracuse University has provided an outstanding example: It offers public diplomacy-related dual graduate degrees conferred by its S.I. Newhouse School of Communications along with its Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

And on the more systemic level, perhaps our global and national PR associations will consider advocacy for “public diplomacy” as consistent with their missions. Too, national governments can find models for “soft power/smart power” with impact in the track record of the highly respected BBC and the Cold War-era U.S. Information Agency.

On a final note

Public relations professionals at all levels might well reflect on the legacy aphorism by the late Walter Annenberg, renowned philanthropist, publisher and diplomat:

“Every human advancement or reversal can be understood through communications.”

Some 10 years after Mr. Annenberg’s death, we can honor his seminal observation by more actively addressing the macro issues of our time.

* * *

Also see the Global Alliance’s (July 2011) Corporate Social Responsibility Communications: interview with John Paluszek

___________________________________________________________________________________

John Paluszek, APR, Fellow PRSA, is senior counsel at Ketchum, specializing in reputation management and corporate responsibility. He is immediate past chair of the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management (GA); liaison to the United Nations for the GA and the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA); and a member of the Commission on Public Relations Education. He served as PRSA’s 1989 president and was the 2010 recipient of its Atlas Award for lifetime achievement in international public relations.

In 1988, he represented PRSA in the first US-Soviet Bilateral Information Talks in Moscow and in the first East-West Public Relations Summit in Vienna. In December 2002, he chaired the plenary session on communications at the Berlin United Nations Global Compact Forum and, in April 2004, addressed the Paris Global Compact meeting on “Sustainable Consumption.” A former journalist, John has written many commentaries for business and academic journals, including Journalism Studies, the Foreign Policy Association’s Viewpoints and a CNBC blog. He is the author of An American Journey, his family’s multi-generational memoir, and seminal books on corporate social responsibility, Organizing for Corporate Social Responsibility (Amacom, 1973) and Will The Corporation Survive? (Prentice-Hall, 1977). Contact him by email.

The PRoust Questionnaire provides a quick insight into a public relations practitioner’s interests and point of view, as well as his or her professional beliefs and values.

If you are not familiar with the original 19th-century Proust Questionnaire, please see details at the end of this post.

PRoust Questionnaire answers from Estelle de Beer:

1. What is your most striking characteristic as a PR practitioner?

Being a good listener. It is important for me to capture all the information that somebody is sharing, in order to form an opinion or make a knowledgeable decision.

2. What is your principal fault as a PR practitioner?

I am a bit of a perfectionist, which can have its advantages and disadvantages in this profession—whether as an academic or practitioner.

3. What is your favourite occupation in PR?

The challenge of working on a strategic level; because once you have decided on the strategy, the implementation is easy.

4. Why do you work in PR?

I believe in the power of communication.

5. What is your idea of PR nirvana?

Nirvana is being allowed to shape the future from your professional point of view.

6. What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery in PR?

When expectations exceed resources.

7. What qualities do you most admire in a PR practitioner?

Being tenacious, dynamic and creative, all with a humble spirit.

8. What qualities do you most dislike in a PR practitioner?

Being overbearing and insincere.

9. Who would you describe as a PR hero or villain?

Hero: PR giants and visionaries in practice or academia, on whose shoulders we can stand. Villain: “Spinners.”

10. What do you most value in your professional contacts?

Inspirational individuals, whose leadership qualities and character I admire.

11. Have you ever been influenced by a PR campaign?

I am always influenced by campaigns that focus on the human side of life.

12. Where would you most like to practise PR?

In any environment that is dynamic and visionary and where I can influence the outcome of decisions.

13. Has a novel, film, play or other work of fiction ever influenced you as a PR practitioner?

Yes, there are many, but in regards to PR, the film Chocolat comes to mind. As change agents we are continually working our magic on the people around us. And, we often change as much as they do.

14. Who do you think has great public relations?

Brands like The Body Shop and Natura that have incorporated sustainability into their business models.

15. Which real, historical or fictional person or brand would you like to give a reputation makeover?

The brand “Africa“—a continent with much potential and many challenges.

16. Who is your favourite writer?

There are many, but a contemporary writer of stories that comes to mind is Paulo Coelho—a true alchemist.

17. What one thing is essential to your PR life?

My network of friends and family.

18. Groucho Marx is quoted as saying he’d never join a club that would have him as a member. Which PR club, association or tribes do you belong to—and why?

I have been a member of numerous professional associations since I started my career. I am currently a member of the Public Relations Institute of South Africa (PRISA) and am past president of the South African Communication Association (SACOMM). I just love this profession and enjoy exchanging ideas with other likeminded people—whether in practice or academia.

19. Where do you most like to do your professional networking?

In virtual or real coffee shops.

20. What’s the best career decision you ever made?

To embark on a journey of lifelong learning.

21. What skills and abilities do you think tomorrow’s PR leaders need?

Thinking strategically about stakeholders: For us it will be “business as usual” but for other managers it will be “business as unusual.”

22. Which talent would you most like to have?

Telling jokes with gusto.

23. How would you like to end your PR career?

Helping young and enthusiastic newcomers to the profession in realising their dreams towards working in one of the most gratifying professions on the planet.

24. How would you describe the current state of public relations?

Extremely exciting and on the verge of some paradigmatic breakthroughs.

25. What is your PR motto?

Just do it!

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Estelle de Beer, MA, joined the University of Pretoria’s department of marketing and communication management in 2003 as a lecturer. She is a founding member of the university’s Centre for Communication and Reputation Management. Prior working experience includes communication manager at the University of Pretoria and similar communication management roles for South Africa’s Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism, and Department of Health and Population Development, plus the City Council of Pretoria and Telkom.

As a past president of SACOMM, she represents the association on the Council for Communication Management (CCM). Estelle was part of the research team for the King III Report on Governance for South Africa 2009, and currently serves on the compliance and stakeholder relationships committee of the King Committee for the writing of the King Report Practice Notes. She facilitated the governance working group for the Stockholm Accords of the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management.

Estelle is working towards a PhD on the topic of the role of corporate communication in corporate governance, sustainability and corporate strategy.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

The PRoust Questionnaire was originally designed to reveal one’s personality. Its name and popularity as a form of interview has roots in the responses given by the French writer, Marcel Proust. His first set of responses came at the end of the nineteenth century, when he was still in his teens (from an English-language “confession album”).

For PR Conversations we have adapted this original idea with questions that offer a public relations’ perspective. It is fun to compare and contrast responses as the series grows. (See below.)

If you would like to be invited to complete our PRoust Questionnaire for posting on PR Conversations, please visit our Crowdsourcing suggestion form.

Earlier PRoust Questionnaire respondents:

- Don Radoli

- Toni Muzi Falconi

- Richard Bailey

- Jane Jordan-Meier

- Nelly Benova

- Peter Stanton

- Mat Wilcox

- Anne Gregory

- Markus Pirchner

- Heather Yaxley

- Judy Gombita

Toni Muzi Falconi shares his impressions of the first Global Congress for Muslim PR Practitioners

Toni Muzi Falconi (third from right) receives an award for "excellent contributions in the field of public relations serving world communities" at the first Global Congress for Muslim PR

In Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from December 5 to 7, 20011, 197 Muslim colleagues from 33 countries, plus two non-Muslim Canadians (Jean Valin and Dan Tisch) and one non-Muslim Italian—the author of this guest post—gathered together for the inaugural Global Congress for Muslim Public Relations Practitioners (GCMPRP). Notably, many of the attendees indicated they were regular readers and ardent fans of PR Conversations.

I’m pleased to report the congress comprised three full days of frank, open and critical discussion, both in sessions and in corridors during breakouts. Perhaps no definitive answers to the big issues were determined, but definitely an excellent selection of presentations focused on real areas to tackle, with ongoing work and considered thought for now and in future.

The Voice of Moderation and Harmony

A widespread sense of satisfaction was palpable at the event, having succeeded in what initially appeared to be a difficult journey. The general feeling of success melded with a second, intense sense of responsibility and some apprehension on what the future might hold for the newly created International Association for Muslim Public Relations and Communication Practitioners, reflected in the unanimously approved umbrella conference theme: The Voice of Moderation and Harmony. An explicit invitation to join the new association is extended to interested non-Muslim practitioners—this author has already applied for membership.

Relationship building highlights involved two heroes and a mentor. First the mentor, Malaysian Sri, Dr. Syed Arabi Idid, the highly regarded, mild and friendly, knowledgeable and respected, chair of the organizing committee for the congress.

The two heroes are the amicable and inspiring Imam Feisal Abd Rauf of the Ground Zero Mosque in New York, who has since become a global icon of the Muslim moderation movement. And also Puan Shameem Abd Jalil, the sweet but tough, lovely but firm, highly professional director of communication and business liaison of Public Investment Bank. She was a key organizer of this event, partly as a significant research component towards her doctoral degree on “The Voice of Moderation in Islamic Communication: The Preferred Tone in Islam from the Perspective of Practices in Malaysia.”

And, “without further ado” (as the students who capably performed as MCs for each session were wont to say), here is the beef (i.e., my impressions from the congress):

On the merits of a religious-based PR practitioners’ association

The decision to create a global PR association with a defined religious corollary was openly discussed. Interestingly, some of the more critical remarks regarding the concept came from younger delegates.

Many others argued that the global perception of Muslims was predominantly based on misconceptions and stereotypes perpetuated by the media systems in the western world. As such, it is the “social” responsibility of the large majority of moderate Muslim public relations practitioners, students, teachers and scholars to collaborate on a planned—and acutely aware—effort to re-establish a more balanced perception by the media and other publics. It was thought the likelihood of success would increase by attracting and convincing non-Muslim colleagues from all over the world (from the start) as to the worth of this endeavour.

With this in mind, efforts should focus on bridging the existing knowledge divides between Muslim practitioners, as well as between this group and non-Muslim colleagues. In this way all could support and champion a global effort.

Notable: Similar to how most public relations conferences fixate on why public relations practitioners have such a poor reputation, in this case reputation issues have a double-edged sword: being in PR and being a Muslim. This emphasizes even more the case to undertake what many called a “rebranding effort.” The more aware agreed that, similar to the simple but diffused PR reputation issue, the challenge really lies in day-to-day behaviour—in other words, from PR practitioners and Muslims alike.

Personal reflection: Whilst the vast majority of behaviour by people working in PR justifies the reputation we hold—but rarely grabs media headlines—a small minority of Muslim extremists and their behaviour do make headlines…with devastating consequences.

What’s more, pertaining to the frequent assault on western media, many delegates exchanged “the finger for the moon.” It was back in 1980 that William MacBride wrote for UNESCO his “Many voices one world” report on the role of western media. It has been clear, at least since then, that shooting the messenger is a much easier, yet futile, exercise than crafting a different narrative (discussing the massager…). Or, as some indicated, “conveying a different point of view.” Most of our employers and clients have always voiced the same gripe since I can remember, anyways. But we know all too well that it’s up to us (not to the media) to be more smart, capable and credible.

On the notion that Islamic PR becomes a specific curricula subject for Muslim PR students

Once again, the majority of criticisms to this concept came from the younger participants!

As one scholar at the congress indicated, the course would have three major components:

• Islam
• human sciences
• public relations and communication

However, as others argued, one wonders how Islamic students could relate intelligently the latter two components to the first (i.e., Islam) if they have not studied the relationships between all religions and public relations (perhaps a boundary-spanning exercise?).

Of course, the relationship between Islam and human sciences and PR and communication is strong and could well become a major component of a global public relations curricula.

Personal reflection: In this case students should study the “sensemaking” of diverse religions, including agnosticism and even atheism, and relate these to historical developments in the public narratives of each faith. Perhaps an interfaith public relations course?

On the idea that Islam needs a “rebranding” exercise

Leaving aside the typical—found in many conferences—divide on the actual appropriateness of the use of the term “rebranding” that emerged in parts of the discussion, one of the two “heroes” of the conference, Feisal Abd Rauf, underlined the dire need for public relations in general, and for Islam public relations in particular, to stick close to advocating moderation, harmony and inclusiveness.

The Ground Zero Mosque case in New York made headlines around the world. At its inception, it was the result of an all-out PR and political attack on Muslims. Yet Feisal succeeded in turning the attack on its heels and attracting solidarity and collaboration from many liberal and lay forces in global society.

Feisal is now a global icon of Islamic moderation. He also noted the Koran refers often to public relations. For example, Arab kings were criticized by the Prophet because they used poets (today’s public relators?) to oversell their activities, instead of promoting a more balanced narrative.

Three initial themes emerged as content for Muslim “rebranding”:

1. Branding Feisal and other icons as champions of Islamic moderation.
2. Arguing the positive health consequences of the Halal food consumption (today an annual $3.2 billion dollars market).
3. Advocating the convenience of Islamic finance services (i.e., no interest charges).

In closing

These are my initial impressions from the inaugural Muslim PR Congress. I feel these three themes need a better framing (ideally from other attendees or Muslim PR practitioners, scholars and students), as well as ad hoc PR programs. Additionally, it would be beneficial to identify other coherent themes that emerged from this congress. The comments section here would be a great start—consider yourself invited to engage in some respectful debate.

Here is the text of my presentation at the congress: “Can we support the future of multicultural integration by applying the ‘generic principles and specific applications’ paradigm of public relations?”

I also invite you to read the conference synopsis by Dan Tisch, current chair of the Global Alliance.

The second Muslim PR Congress is planned for 2013; possibly it will be held in Tehran, Iran.

One discussion theme emerging at PR Conversations during 2011 has been the role of women in public relations.  Although PR has become a feminised occupation since the 1990s, many issues remain such as salary differentials, dominance of men in senior positions and 90% female intake on undergraduate degree courses, which we’ve debated in one post or another.

As this is the traditional time of year for looking backwards, I’m not talking about these current debates, but taking a journey to Mars – ironically a destination in the news as a future home for humankind.  The life on Mars I’m talking about is a time when men dominated PR practice.  I’m looking to land in the 1970s and 1980s with research for my PhD (which is investigating career strategies in public relations).

There were few women working in PR in the early part of the 20th century – or at least their stories are largely untold in the history texts.   In the 1940s and 1950s, PR was a patriarchal industry where women were not expected to develop careers. Nevertheless, in Britain by 1987 women were estimated to account for 21% of members of the Institute of Public Relations, and in the US, the gender switch had occurred.

During the 1960s, literature claims the role of women in British PR was to promote fashion and similar female-oriented products and flatter clients. This gendered nature of emotional labour (remember Sex Sells) presents what Froëlich identifies as a “friendliness trap” for women’s career development in PR.

So I’m interested in exploring planet PR for female life on Mars – that is to examine the career experiences of women who entered the male dominated environment of British PR in the 1970s and 1980s.

There are lots of interesting challenges this rare species faced – such as role and vertical segregation (ie women were expected to work in junior roles – and stay there).  There were many career inequities according to gender studies of PR.  However, alongside the ‘glass ceiling’, I’m looking for the life support factors – the role of male mentors and societal and organizational drivers as well as constraints. Was this an era when second wave feminism had an impact and were women in PR affected by critical incidents, such as the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975 and the election of Britain’s first female prime minister in 1979?

Early in 2012, I’m planning to conduct oral history interviews to obtain rich descriptive accounts of women’s careers in an era when male domination was being challenged.  I’m not just interested in the stories of women of renown, but those who may not have followed a traditional hierarchical career path.  If you were a Venus in this strange land of Mars at the time, then please leave a comment and I’d love to talk with you further.  I’m also going to talk with some men, so if you were a Martian then (or now), please share your perspective too.

The aim of my study is not only to record Life on Mars in British public relations during the 1970s and 1980s, but to determine the role of women working in PR as change agents in opening up career opportunities for younger female practitioners.  If you feel that such women had an impact on your career decisions – again please join the conversation.

Guest post by Terry Flynn, PhD, APR, FCPRS

Setting the stage for a defining moment for public relations

Over the past few weeks, hundreds of public relations professionals were engaged in the Public Relations Society of America-led initiative to “redefine” public relations. This program, which includes the support of various public relations organizations—such as the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC), the UK’s Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) and the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communications Management (GA)—has sparked interest, debate and dialogue across the practice.

This, in its own right, could be an advantageous outcome of the initiative.

While it is important and necessary to ensure that our professional associations and their members agree upon a definition that is relevant to the practice and profession today, I would suggest that the #PRDefined project has missed an opportunity to look North (and into the near past, as discussed in a 2009 PR Conversations post) and incorporate the results of a redefinition project that was initiated by the Canadian Public Relations Society.

An opportunity for renewal

Nearly three years ago, a number of CPRS educators and members met to begin a process of understanding how public relations was taught across the country. While post-secondary education in Canada is a national priority, it is governed and regulated at the provincial level. As such, Canada has 13 different curriculum standards for public relations education. And as the profession is not licensed in Canada (or in most countries for that matter), there has not been a regulatory or industry-supported approach to learning strategies and outcomes, including programs of study, certification or accreditation, areas that should be reflective of current practices.

Under the leadership of the CPRS national council of education, we set out to understand and achieve agreement on a model or models of post-secondary public relations education that could be adopted by institutions.

In order to do this, however, we agreed first to take a step back and review our values as a Society and how we (as a professional organization) and our members define the practice of public relations.

This step of “defining” the practice was important for CPRS as there was no official Canadian definition of public relations. After researching the matter, we determined that our educational institutions were using a wide variety of definitions, usually based on the textbooks that instructors used for their introduction or public relations theory course.

This exercise also coincided with the Global Alliance’s efforts to develop new global standards for the practice of PR and the development of a global definition. It became evident that the best use of our working group’s time and efforts should focus on our national task of defining public relations in Canada, leaving the task of developing a global definition to the GA.

Following the June 2008 conference, 20 educators, practitioners, members of the Global Alliance and CPRS board members participated in a visioning and values session, led by our esteemed colleague and former national president, Joan Yates. During this facilitated session, we agreed upon some key characteristics of the practice of public relations in Canada—recognizing that we, as Canadian practitioners, believe that the practice of public relations is culturally dependent, especially in a country that encompasses two very strong and interdependent national cultures (English and French).

Setting the vision and values

Our visioning and values session was encouraging, inclusive and reflexive of the current state of practice in Canada. Those gathered agreed on five important values that were important for CPRS members and differentiated their practice of public relations. Core values revolve around:

1. An ethical practice

2. A strategic practice

3. Achieving mutual benefit

4. Demonstrating leadership and engagement

5. A commitment to continuous learning

See the expanded CPRS “Our Values” Statement, which includes additional commentary and examples.

Key link

The deliberate process of refining the values of the Society was fundamental for the board and the national council on education, as it provided a key link between the practice and the curriculum framework planning group—the group that would eventually write the recently launched “Pathways to the Profession” white paper on the future of public relations education in Canada.

Understanding what a professional organization values helps to conceptualize, clarify and build consensus around the eventual characteristics of a definition of the practice.

The important, missing step

This is an important step that I believe is missing from the current #PRdefined project. While there has been tremendous interest in the initiative—including, we’re told, 16,000 web page views, 900 submissions and 70 comments—it appears obvious from the current comments on PRSA’s dedicated website that there isn’t a clear consensus among the participants on the fundamental nature of the practice.

For many public relations is primarily media relations, while for others it is about engaging the public through social media platforms.

What is valued?

But what do members of our profession value in the practice of public relations?

Do they believe that the practice should be based in ethics and transparency—an  important issue in society today with the recent “phone hacking” scandal in the UK or the growing “Occupy Movements” that began in New York and then spread to various parts of the world? Do practitioners believe that public relations should be practised in the public interest—a fundamentally democratic value that recognizes that all organizations are granted a license to operate through public consensus?

Not to forget that the majority of professionals who practise public relations in various parts of the world work or are employed in public or government institutions, with all of the legal and regulatory obligations that those roles encompass and entail. (See the South African example.)

A wiki approach to redefinition

Appreciating there were already more than 450 published definitions of public relations, our team—Fran Gregory, Jean Valin and I—set out to analyze a sample of those definitions through the filter of the CPRS Values Statements via the Defining Public Relations wiki I set up.

Through a selective process, we whittled these down to fewer than 20 definitions, posting them on our research wiki in late 2008. Through our research and a series of online discussions and teleconferences with expanded individuals and input, we agreed on six theoretical frames that we believe have informed, current academic thinking and practice-based discussions. They were:

• relationship management
• reputation management
• serves the public interest
• strategic and tactical
• managed function
• two-way symmetrical communications

Informed research and analysis

Each of us then analyzed the selected definitions to see if one or more incorporated all six theoretical frames. None of the selected definitions incorporated all the elements, leaving it up to the researchers to propose a new definition. After much discussion and research, we also came to the understanding that a good reputation is an outcome of positive relationships and therefore our definition didn’t need to specifically set out to incorporate this theoretical frame.

In August 2008, after proposing a number of drafts, the research team agreed on the following working definition:

Public Relations is the management, through communication, of strategic relationships between an organization and its publics to achieve mutual understanding, meet organizational goals, and to serve the public interest.

This draft incorporated most of the theoretical frames, with the exception of reputation management.

A focus on PR as a management function that encourages mutual understanding and the public interest

The definition set out to place public relations as a “management function,” through the recognition the primary responsibility of professionals is to manage the relationships between the organization and its public and being accountable for the strategic outcomes of those relationships in order to “meet organizational goals.”

This definition also incorporated the desire to achieve mutual understanding between the organization and its publics—implying that the act of relationship building is built on mutuality, where both parties have power and voice.

Finally, that the intent of all organizational communicative activities is not only to meet the goals of the enterprise but in fact, those goals are in relation to the overall public interest—the nexus between the organization’s interest and the community’s interest.

Final CPRS definition approved

After a number of discussions and revisions, the research team agreed on a final definition in January 2009:

Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communications, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals, and serve the public interest.

The key changes noted in this final version are modification of the term management to “strategic management”—implying that the function provides the best value to the organization when it provides “C-Level” counsel and direction to the organization’s leadership team. Furthermore, this definition modifies the term publics to “diverse publics” in an effort to signal that an organization has a diversity of stakeholder groups that it needs to engage in order to realize its goals. The term diverse was also used to suggest that these stakeholder groups represent broad and unique perspectives that should be recognized by the organization.

In February 2009, both the Values Statement (developed by the national council of education) and the above definition of public relations was passed unanimously by CPRS’s board of directors and adopted as its official definition of public relations.

Since that time (and thanks to Judy Gombita and others involved with PR Conversations), the CPRS definition has been translated into at least five different languages and has been suggested as a possible global definition of public relations.

The critics

There are, of course, those that believe that our definition is too “aspirational” or too “idealistic”—and we, as the authors, don’t dispute or disagree with some of the criticism. After all, our task was partially to fill a then-existing void in Canadian public relations scholarship and practice.

In close…

While we believe that our definition has the necessary theoretical grounding and provides students, researchers and professionals—and even our mothers—with the necessary normative directions and practical considerations, we understand that the practice of public relations is culturally dependent.

Therefore, while we believe that this definition provides the necessary framework for the practice of public relations in Canada, without empirical testing, its application in other countries and contexts is yet to be demonstrated.

We applaud the PRSA in embarking on their definition project and wish them much success in developing a one-size-fits-all definition for the practice of public relations in the United States.

As stated at the opening of this lengthy post, the process of discussion, debate and dialogue about the nature and definition of the profession may be the ultimate winner in this initiative.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terence (Terry) Flynn, PhD, APR, FCPRS is a faculty member at McMaster University, a past president of the Canadian Public Relations Society and the senior associate editor of the newly launched Journal of Professional Communications (JPC).

He was a 20-year public relations consultant prior to obtaining his PhD from Syracuse University in 2004.

Read his blog, follow him on Twitter or connect with Terry Flynn on Linkedin or by email.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Hourglass photo by Erik Fitzpatrick (also known as graymalkn), via Creative Commons.

Guest post by Benita Steyn

In November 2011, Benita Steyn and Estelle de Beer from South Africa delivered a paper, The Strategic Role of Public Relations in the Process of Integrated Reporting at the Corporate Governance and Strategic Communication Congress in Milan, Italy.

We welcome back contributor alumna, Benita Steyn, who kindly agreed to provide an abridged version of this paper for PR Conversations.

Backgrounder: Integrated reporting and strategic public relations

The collapse of the financial system and the global economic crisis of 2008-09 has been a wake-up call to the world. The realisation has dawned that a fundamental shift is needed in the way companies and their directors act and organise themselves. Actually, the financial services industry needs a whole new operating model.

Dean Nohria of the Harvard Business School says that it has become necessary to rethink/rebuild business organisations around a new set of principles and behaviour.

The most important principle is that governance, strategy and sustainability are inseparable.

Also important is stakeholder “inclusivity,” i.e., considering the legitimate interests/expectations of stakeholders to be in the best interests of the company (and not merely an instrument to serve the interests of shareholders).

An important step in the fundamental shift needed in corporate governance is the recommendation of the King Report on Governance for South Africa, 2009 (a.k.a. King III), that companies adopt “integrated reporting” (that is, integrate annual financial reports with sustainability reports).

This means economic, social and environmental issues need to be included in corporate strategy, management, reporting and assurance in the same manner as financial matters. The increased transparency of an integrated report will result in greater legitimacy and trust in the company and an enhanced reputation among its stakeholders.

How does this relate to PR?

In its latest theoretical developments and best practice, the field of PR has much to offer in bringing about the organisational changes indicated above, referring, for instance, to the principles contained in:

• the Grunigs’ two-way symmetrical (dialogic) communication, excellence and strategic management behavioural approaches (in the USA);
• the relationship and reputation management approaches (originating in the USA);
• the reflective/societal approach (in Europe); and
• the Pretoria School’s strategic approach (in South Africa).

According to Toni Muzi Falconi, the first 10 years of the 21^st century, “…ignited a new beginning of the public relations profession in its day-to-day practice, conceptualization and public perception.” However, in many instances, top management remains unaware of the strategic contribution that public relations can make towards organisational sustainability, which has become the primary moral and economic imperative of this century.

What is integrated reporting?

The King III Report (2009) defines integrated reporting as a “holistic and integrated representation of the company’s performance in terms of both its finances and its sustainability.” Therefore, it is not simply an amalgamation of the annual financial statements and the sustainability report. While it is the organisation’s primary report, it could be linked to other more detailed reports and/or information on the company’s website.

The overarching objective of an integrated report is to enable stakeholders to assess the ability of an organisation to create and sustain value over the short-, medium- and long-term. Stakeholders should be able to determine whether the organisation’s governing structure has applied its collective mind in identifying the environmental, social, economic and financial issues that impact on the organisation, as well as to assess the extent to which these issues have been incorporated into the organisation’s strategy.

Interactive communication with key stakeholders is fundamental to the success of integrated reporting, as engagement leads to knowledge of the stakeholders’ legitimate interests and expectations. The information acquired through this engagement process enables the executive team to implement—and the governing structure to monitor—the organisation’s long-term strategy on a more informed basis.

What are the benefits of strategic PR role-playing in the process of integrated reporting?

From a PR perspective, it will assist in further institutionalising its strategic role, that is, make it an ongoing, accepted practice in most organisations. Although recent research indicates an increasing incidence of strategic PR role-playing in best practice organisations, in many countries/organisations it still remains PR’s technical role that is best known and widely accepted, and thus demanded by top management and other functions.

According to Toni Muzi Falconi, “The effective governance of stakeholder relationships is the new global frontier of the public relations and communication profession.” But for PR to play such a strategic role, its processes have to be fully integrated with relevant organisational processes (which in many instances are not the case).

Getting involved in integrated reporting thus provides an opportunity to fully integrate strategic PR processes (such as environmental scanning and stakeholder/issue/risk management) with those of the organisation. It will bring to top management’s attention the knowledge base and skills set that practitioners in public relation’s strategic role offer and how this can be harnessed in addressing the new organisational challenge of “integrated reporting.”

The organisational perspective

Strategic PR role-playing in the process of integrated reporting benefits not only the field of PR but also the organisation. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to provide a comprehensive picture of organisational performance.

Many stakeholders are questioning the relevance and reliability of annual financial reports as a basis to make decisions about companies, because the hard quantifiable data desired by financial analysts do not always tell the full story. A deeper understanding of risk, performance and value generation can be obtained by providing the softer, non-quantifiable environment, social and governance information.

Such forward-looking information will enable stakeholders to more effectively assess the total economic value of a company. It is thus necessary to engage the broader stakeholder community and better understand its expectations, values and norms, and what stakeholders consider material in terms of non-financial information.

Environment, social and governance information (ESG)

The environment, social and governance information (ESG) required by stakeholders can be supplied by boundary-spanning functions, such as PR through its strategic activities. For example:

• advanced media analysis, social and perception audits;
• the monitoring of trends/issues/activist groups and government decision makers on identified issues;
• the measurement of stakeholder relationship health and organisational reputation.

Even when ESG information is supplied in sustainability reports, the latter often fail to make the link between sustainability issues and the organisation’s core strategy.

Here existing theories regarding PR’s strategic role in enterprise strategy and PR strategy development can contribute to the process of integrated reporting.

Guidelines for integrated reporting

The first country to mandate integrated reporting is South Africa. The Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) has made it a requirement for listed companies, effective 2010. Because there is no globally recognised framework for measuring/reporting on non-financial ESG performance, the Integrated Reporting Committee (IRC) was formed in South Africa. The IRC presented its integrated reporting framework/guidelines in January 2011, followed by the International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC), which subsequently released its discussion paper on September 12, 2011.

Based on an analysis of the IRC guidelines (specifically Section 3 that outlines elements to be addressed in an integrated report), Estelle de Beer and I presented the findings of our exploratory research in Milan; namely, that:

PR can contribute to the process of integrated reporting (and its outcome, the integrated report) through three strategic PR processes:

1.  Environmental assessment.

2.  Contribution to enterprise strategy development (i.e., to the sustainability dimensions of  strategy).

3.  Development of PR strategy (deliberate and emergent).

If interest is demonstrated, Estelle de Beer and I would be happy to provide more information on these three processes.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Benita Steyn is a part-time lecturer at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology in Cape Town, South Africa, where she teaches on its web-based Master’s in Public Relations Management program. Her research interest is strategic public relations, i.e., the contribution of PR at the top management level.

Benita Steyn recently began a ‘gap’ year in which she plans to travel abroad extensively—for leisure, not for work!

______________________________________________________________________________________

The PRoust Questionnaire provides a quick insight into a public relations practitioner’s interests and point of view, as well as his or her professional beliefs and values.

If you are not familiar with the original 19th-century Proust Questionnaire, please see details at the end of this post.

PRoust Questionnaire answers from Don Radoli, Senior Communications Adviser at The Norwegian Immigration Appeals Board:

1. What is your most striking characteristic as a PR practitioner?

I try to get things right the first time, although this doesn’t always happen as one is dependent on other people for the final result.

2. What is your principal fault as a PR practitioner?

I’m impatient with decision makers who don’t bother returning journalists’ phone calls.

3. What is your favourite occupation in PR?

Coaching decision makers on media relations and seeing that they understand why the press has a role to play in a democratic society.

4. Why do you work in PR?

I migrated from journalism, and believe that done properly, with clear role understanding between PR practitioner and journalist, it does make a difference.

5. What is your idea of PR nirvana?
When I manage to convince a journalist that his/her “big scoop” is at variance with the facts in the case and he/she agrees to drop it.

6. What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery in PR?

When some practitioners and decision makers believe that a well-crafted press release is all one needs to get the message across.

7. What qualities do you most admire in a PR practitioner?

Reliability/honesty and the guts to tell the client or CEO that the objective they’ve set can’t be achieved by comms. You can’t just put fancy make up on a rotten situation.

8. What qualities do you most dislike in a PR practitioner?

Boot-licking.

9. Who would you describe as a PR hero or villain?

One who tells it like it is, lays out the facts and suggests alternative courses of action. A villain promises what he can’t deliver either to get business or please client.

10. What do you most value in your professional contacts?

That they believe in what they do and are willing to stand up for it, sometimes at considerable cost to themselves.

11. Have you ever been influenced by a PR campaign?

Yes, I remember vaguely the one for Arrow shirts where the male model had a “Moshe Dayan” eye patch. To this day I still believe Arrow shirts are notch above the rest.

12. Where would you most like to practise PR?

With 24:7 comms location isn’t important. But an important area that is getting bad press is the climate change debate — it would be interesting to practice PR for such an important cause. Seems the “bad guys” — the climate sceptics have upper hand now.

13. Has a novel, film, play or other work of fiction ever influenced you as a PR practitioner?

Things fall apart by Chinua Achebe.

14. Who do you think has great public relations?

Apple. I hope they can maintain the momentum following Steve Jobs’ death.

15. Which real, historical or fictional person or brand would you like to give a reputation makeover?

Rupert Murdoch. Despite his immense media power and global footprint he seems to get it wrong all the time.

16. Who is your favourite writer?

Chinua Achebe and Marshall McLuhan. The latter’s contribution to critical thinking about the media is grossly underrated — I believe this because of Americo-centric thinking in both media and PR.

17. What one thing is essential to your PR life?

My iPad

18. Groucho Marx is quoted as saying he’d never join a club that would have him as a member.  Which PR club, association or tribes do you belong to—and why?

I belong to the local communications association here in Oslo because they host an annual seminar with good keynote speakers. The groups on LinkedIn are great — I lead the Stakeholder Relationship Management Group there.

19. Where do you most like to do your professional networking?

Face to face and on LinkedIn.

20. What’s the best career decision you ever made?

Resigning my safe job as Business Editor at a trade publication and doing a post graduate degree in media and comms.

21. What skills and abilities do you think tomorrow’s PR leaders need?

People skills; relationship building at all levels.

22. Which talent would you most like to have?

Understand and play music.

23. How would you like to end your PR career?

Lecturing at a University near my home in Kenya.

23. How would you describe the current state of public relations?

Transitional, nobody seem to fathom what the digital revolution will lead to.

24. What is your PR motto?

Get it right the first time, if you don’t try again.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Don Radoli is Senior Communications Adviser at The Norwegian Immigration Appeals Board, based in Oslo.  He worked in journalism and academia before taking up his current position in 2002.  Don holds a BA degree from The Nowergian School of Journalism and The University of Oslo, where he also achieved an MA.  You can connect with him by email, via LinkedIn, where he runs the Stakeholder Relationship Management group, Twitter: @DRadoli, on Facebook and Google+.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

The PRoust Questionnaire was originally designed to reveal one’s personality. Its name and popularity as a form of interview has roots in the responses given by the French writer, Marcel Proust. His first set of responses came at the end of the nineteenth century, when he was still in his teens (from an English-language “confession album”).

For PR Conversations we have adapted this original idea with questions that offer a public relations’ perspective. It is fun to compare and contrast responses as the series grows. (See below.)

If you would like to be invited to complete our PRoust Questionnaire for posting on PR Conversations, please visit our Crowdsourcing suggestion form.

Earlier PRoust Questionnaire respondents:

- Toni Muzi Falconi

- Richard Bailey

- Jane Jordan-Meier

- Nelly Benova

- Peter V. Stanton

- Mat Wilcox

- Anne Gregory

- Markus Pirchner

- Heather Yaxley

- Judy Gombita