From this lofty position, it is easy to see why journalists are critical of public relations, seeing it as interfering with their role as truth-seekers with PR practitioners acting as barriers to the vital information the media need to expose powerful individuals and organisations who can afford to employ PR professionals to protect them from the exposure of media attention.  Of course, this ignores the fact that access to the media is not restricted to PR professionals; whilst not-for-profit and other “underdogs” are adept at gaining media headlines, often at the expense of the establishment in society.

Journalists also claim that their expert training sets them apart from others, especially in terms of developing their professional judgement about what is news and how to present this to the public.  As such journalists are perceived as an “elite” without whom, society would not function effectively.  This echoes the belief of Edward Bernays that PR practitioners also played such a role in helping interpret information on behalf of the public.  

This argument about the value of journalism acting on behalf of the public is increasingly questionable. Today the public is more media literate and for every exposé in the public interest (such as the Pakistan cricket scandal) there is evidence of unethical practice (such as phone tapping by the same newspaper).  An argument of “the ends justifies the means” may be made – but coming from an example of a newspaper which is adept at titillation and celebrity nonsense, this is hard to credit.

Then public relations gets the blame for lowering standards – it is our fault that celebrity culture is rife in media coverage (even the so called “quality media”).  But could publicists be so successful if the media wasn’t so open to such stories. Chicken and egg situation.  Indeed, it would be helpful if the media could distinguish between publicists and PR professionals.  The UK media is widely quoting Max Clifford in respect of a situation affecting a senior British politician, despite his obvious lack of experience or qualifications in this matter.  Indeed, given Clifford’s track record as a publicist in endorsing lying, whilst criticising hypocrisy, why would any media find him credible?

This reflects another trend among the media where the calibre of “experts” is questionable. Interviewing fellow journalists is common, whilst the “rent-a-gob” crowd appear habitually on the sofas of serious news programmes.  There is increasingly a lack of attention to detail, including basic facts. Two minutes searching media articles will reveal how absolute data often differs between news reports, and errors are propagated by poor research.

Here the excuse is that the media are under increased pressures with less time and fewer resources available for accuracy.  Frankly it shouldn’t take much to check essential facts and who can be surprised if journalists are no longer viewed as the ultimate sources on information when they get the basics wrong. 

Commercial pressures are frequently cited as affecting the quality of journalism.  Yet, the media has historically been driven by financial motives – those who had the power or an agenda founded most major newspapers and commercial television is just that.  State run media has other pressures and is frequently criticised for being propaganda.

Enter the rise of “citizen journalism” thanks to the Internet and social media.  Here journalism rises further on its high horse claiming that this is largely opinion driven, unaccountable and of poor quality (see Mitch Joel’s interesting post on the subject).  I recently heard such arguments from journalists who similarly bemoaned the availability of free copy, editors demanding “content”, publications that simply reproduce media releases, questionable websites and poor writing standards.  These same journalists rely on PR practitioners to fully fund attendance at media events, provide copy-ready information (increasingly to websites), which they even supplement with grammatically incorrect material.

I’d like to say that I’m talking about the minority of journalists here with the majority reflecting higher ideals, standards and beliefs.  But the truth is that high quality journalists are increasingly rare. 

Few of the “old school” media are engaging with social media in my experience, beyond submitting tweaked media releases to websites.  But this doesn’t stop them having an opinion about the “amateurs” writing and communicating online.  This view of the public echoes that dismissal of the masses who needed an “elite” back in the early 19th century.  Ironically the Oxford English Dictionary includes a definition of journalism from 1848 as “keeping a journal”.

Another truth is that more and more of the public are not convinced that they want an elite to provide them with news, opinion, endorsements or entertainment.  This is a shame, but explains why many PR practitioners are turning to online sources for influencers these days.  Good quality communication from reliable, independent and credible sources is important for society and for public relations (whether it is via print/broadcast/online).  I’d like more journalists to reflect this and not just claim it.  Otherwise, they will be increasingly marginalised by PR practitioners and the public alike.  And that’s the truth.

[Thanks to Judy Gombita for input to this post]

Anne Gregory, PhD, FCIPR, Director of the Centre for Public Relations Studies, Leeds Metropolitan University

The PRoust Questionnaire provides a quick insight into a public relations practitioner’s interests and point of view, as well as their 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.

1. What is your most striking characteristic as a PR practitioner?
Straight talking and to the point.

2. What is your principal fault as a PR practitioner?
Not recognizing that some people don’t like straight talking.

3. What is your favourite occupation in PR?
Being given difficult and brain-taxing things to do.

4. Why do you work in PR?
Because it’s important.

5. What is your idea of PR nirvana?
Clients who listen and take advice – and I’m enjoying a little taste of heaven now!

6. What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery in PR?
People who don’t tell you the whole story when they have a problem.

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

8. What qualities do you most dislike in a PR practitioner?
Arrogance and not really caring.

9. Who would you describe as a PR hero or villain?
[Hero] Someone who makes a positive difference. [Villlain] Someone who sees his or her fee as the measure of all things.

10. What do you most value in your professional contacts?
Keeping me in touch with reality.

11. Have you ever been influenced by a PR campaign?
Yes, the campaigns on conserving resources. They appeal to my better nature and my instincts – I’m a Yorkshire woman – they are notorious for looking after the pennies!

12. Where would you most like to practise PR?
In Nirvana.

13. Has a novel, film, play or other work of fiction ever influenced you as a PR practitioner?
Shakespeare’s Hamlet – as a practitioner you need to recognize the play within the play.

14. Who do you think has great public relations?
Richard Branson.

15. Which real, historical or fictional person or brand would you like to give a reputation makeover?
The Big Bad Wolf – he had kids to feed, too!

16. Who is your favourite writer?
At the moment Alexander McCall Smith – I hear Africa when I read him. For the long term, Graham Greene – fantastic stories, great writing.

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

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?
Chartered Institute of Public Relations: because professionals should support their Institute. Board member of the Global Alliance, because being “global” matters and its conferences are held in wonderful places.

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

20. What’s the best career decision you ever made?
Becoming an academic – being paid to think is wonderful.

21. What skills and abilities do you think tomorrow’s PR leaders need?
Same ones as today’s: Integrity, an ability to deal with ambiguity and a determination to do what’s right.

22. Which talent would you most like to have?
To be able to draw.

23. How would you like to end your PR career?
With a glass of champagne feeling the job’s been well done.

24. How would you describe the current state of public relations?
On the brink of greatness….or irrelevance, depending on whether we are up to the challenge.

25. What is your PR motto?
Always make the call you don’t want to…put it right.

Professor Anne Gregory, PhD, FCIPR, is director of the Centre for Public Relations Studies at Leeds Metropolitan University. Before moving into academic life, Anne spent 12 years in practice, holding senior appointments, both in-house and in consultancy. She is still actively involved in research, consultancy and training for large clients such as the Department of Health. Anne was president of the UK Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) in 2004, and edits the Institute’s Public Relations in Practice series. She is an internationally recognised researcher, has written and edited books and published in numerous journals. She is editor-in-chief of the Journal of Communication Management. Anne invites you to make contact with her by email. Or comment here.

———————————————————————————————————————————————

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 will be fun to compare and contrast responses as the series grows. 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:

- Markus Pirchner
- Heather Yaxley
- Judy Gombita

Review by Toni Muzi Falconi

I’ve now been teaching Global Relations and Intercultural Communication at New York University’s Master’s in Public Relations for five years, including reviewing my (ever-changing) syllabus involving some 150 students to date.

For example, the book interchangeably mixes international with global. I disagree, as in my view international implies some home base and peripheral locations around the world as an organizational mindset, while global implies one worldview, based on generic principles and specific applications applied to a profession, rather than an organization, which is today practised either from a global perspective or is not.

On the other hand, while one of the paradigms the book offers is that there is no one way of practising effective public relations, there seems to be insufficient emphasis on the facts that:

• Public relations is, in itself, a global profession and no single sub-discipline should escape this truth. To the point that each course should take this path and therefore education curricula should do away with specific courses dedicated to global public relations.
• We, who are directly involved, should be the first to recognize and to advocate for this.
• Generic principles are in no way effective if they are not entirely interdependent with specific applications. Effective practice relies on this structural interdependence, whether one is Coca Cola in Thailand, the World Bank in Nicaragua or Walmart in California.
• While the book details “generic principles” quite well, it is less convincing when it illustrates specific applications and, most importantly, the components as well as the identification process of the public relations infrastructure of a given territory. Not to mention in explaining the reasons why no generic principle is in itself valid if not practised differently in coherence with a certain specific infrastructure.p

In conclusion, I highly recommend the textbook, Global Public Relations: spanning borders, spanning cultures. finds its way horizontally into undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate courses in public relations, irrespective of the single subject  or the country… and that anyone who is interested and aware of the impact public relations has on the dynamics of today’s societies read it.

From this new entry into the publishing field there is a lot to learn from and a lot to think about.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6Abd2S2ISUIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Global+Public+Relations:+spanning+borders,+spanning+cultures&source=bl&ots=vy4ATV2rbU&sig=5Ho95DgY2j5y7IIqLWu8yxbmBKg&hl=en&ei=Xo52TPrGOYmr4Abg7bWoBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

]]> http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2010/08/global-public-relations-spanning-borders-spanning-cultures/feed/ 2 http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2010/08/public-relations-should-embrace-not-deny-its-marketing-links/ http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2010/08/public-relations-should-embrace-not-deny-its-marketing-links/#comments Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:34:32 +0000 Heather Yaxley http://www.prconversations.com/?p=1238 Many people think that PR is a subset of marketing – they are wrong [See this classic: ToughSledding post/comments if you don’t agree].  But so are those working in PR who seek to put great distance between what they do and marketing.  The denial of the close relationship with marketing which is necessary in most organisations (including the not for profit and public sectors) fails to recognise the reality of the majority of PR practice.  Indeed, as Professor Anne Gregory discussed in a 2007 PR Conversations post, “about 70% of all public relations effort is devoted to what is called Marketing Public Relations”.

I believe the apartheid perspective is the cause of much misunderstanding between PR academia and practice.  The learned view is adamant that PR is a distinct discipline, with strategic purpose that is about reputation, relationships, values and so forth.  It often denigrates the role PR plays in generating publicity (reflecting criticisms of the “press agentry” approach in the dominant Grunig & Hunt 4 model paradigm).

So should the majority of PR practitioners be redeployed in the marketing function?  Are only those engaged in strategic, public relations at the highest level worthy of being considered PR professionals?  And should these enlightened beings pay little, if any, attention to what their marketing colleagues are doing – since that is clearly beneath their consideration?  Or should they recognise the craft-focused PR practitioners as part of the team, but keep them in their place at the bottom of the hierarchy of the profession?

Denial may be the easy response to the increasing blurring between much PR and marketing practice – or encroachment if we are feeling at all defensive.  I’m sure the marketers won’t complain – especially the consultancies – who relish the opportunity to own sponsorship, exhibitions, “experiential marketing”, buzz/viral/word of mouth, creative stunts even.

And what about internal communications – up for grabs between human resources, marketing or those who believe it is a specialist discipline and certainly not public relations?  They can also take customer relations – surely that’s not really a core element of reputation management is it?  But strategic PR claims ownership of issues and crisis management – can that be possible without engaging with those often most affected by any corporate problem?

This is possibly the crux of the matter – PR people are more than happy to lay claim to relationships with the majority of organisational stakeholders, apart from customers.  If that involves a strategic “boundary spanning” role, that’s also fine by them – but that doesn’t include consumer insight and other marketing oriented research.  Such intelligence or indeed, other aspects of marketing relating to pricing, product design/development, distribution, service standards and so forth isn’t our bag.

Public relations seems to want to take a “pick and mix” approach – we’ll take our favourite parts of the communication mix, and of course, whatever strategic influence we can gain.  We’ll complain when marketing seems to be stepping into PR’s territory; wailing “they don’t understand us and what we do”.  We cry that it’s their fault we’re stuck with AVE measurements – when we could argue for better approaches which THEY are probably applying in their own work.

Rather than denying any connection with marketing, we should be embracing much of what PR can learn from our corporate sibling.  Here are just 5 suggestions:

1. Investment in research and evaluation – do many PR functions/consultancies have research specialists in their teams?  How much money is dedicated to establishing a baseline before any activity is undertaken and assessing against this during and afterwards?  What do PR practitioners understand about statistical analysis, profiling publics, even media planning?
2. Budgets that reflect the importance of the objective to be achieved – rather than argue for adequate funding, PR practitioners continue to boast about achieving “free” coverage, being more cost-effective than marketing, etc – no wonder it becomes difficult to secure decent budgets, especially for initiatives that are not focused on generating media coverage.
3. Professional presentations drawing on theoretical principles – yes, our marketing colleagues generally learn a wide range of models and theories which they then use to present their plans and the rationale for the campaigns they propose.
4. Enthusiasm and creativity – marketing people believe in what they are doing (they’re not fazed by the adage that at least of half their work is wasted).  Their work involves generating ideas, seeking competitive advantage, new ways of working and opportunities for their paymaster to achieve marketing goals.  In contrast, PR people can often seem pessimistic pointing out pitfalls and potential problems – we’re the Eeyore to marketing’s happier Pooh bear.
5. An operational view of the organisation – marketing is embraced as a core organisational function, not just at the centre but the forefront of what many businesses are about.  It claims a position by right based on understanding why the organisation exists and how it will operate to achieve this.  This is beyond a marketing communications role, but involves understanding corporate finances and return on investment.

Yes, marketing already takes a strategic position, but does not deny the necessity to get its hands dirty too.  The tactical delivery of marketing is essential to the credibility of the function in the boardroom.  Its senior practitioners may not always understand what PR is about – but whilst we are gazing at our navels, the marketing folk know what needs to be done and if that means encroaching or otherwise blending the functions, so be it.

The future is undoubtedly going to be a need for closer relationships between PR and marketing.  Indeed, those with PR competencies should be best placed to take advantage of the need for greater flexibility and maturation of communications beyond the traditional one-way advertising approaches.  But we won’t capitalise on this opportunity for strategic generalists by denying the reality of specialist PR practice.  Surely it is time for reverse encroachment with PR people embracing and adopting the best from marketing alongside their own assets.

Public relations is not simply marketing, but it’s not just strategic relationship building or reputation management either.   Let’s celebrate our role in generating publicity, motivating publics and making things happen.  The PR glass shouldn’t just be half-full, but overflowing – after all, PR practitioners throw the best parties don’t they?

]]> http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2010/08/public-relations-should-embrace-not-deny-its-marketing-links/feed/ 11 http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2010/08/a-one-on-one-chat-with-solo-pr%e2%80%99s-kellye-crane/ http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2010/08/a-one-on-one-chat-with-solo-pr%e2%80%99s-kellye-crane/#comments Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:27:40 +0000 Judy Gombita http://www.prconversations.com/?p=1204

Kellye Crane, Crane Communication, LLC

Recently we featured a guest post from Sean Williams, where he discussed the value of holding memberships and participating in formal organizations (“Why join?”). Sean also touched upon the many no-cost, online options available. During this interview with the PR-smart and social media-savvy, respected and much-loved (not to mention, fun) Kellye Crane, we find out more about one such targeted, alternative option: the Solo PR community.

What inspired you to introduce the Solo PR undertaking, including its increasingly well-known (and beloved) dedicated Twitter chat?

Everything I’ve done is an extension of the Solo PR Pro blog, and that platform continues to be the “hub.” Other channels have evolved as a way to provide additional resources and outlets for the community that built up around the blog and my personal Twitter stream. (I very recently introduced a dedicated Twitter account for @solopr.)

Often, members from this community I initiated suggested the additional activities they want to see – that was the case with our weekly #solopr Twitter chats. I’d been pondering starting a chat, but before I could get around to it, a few commenters on the blog requested it.

For that reason, though I founded the blog independently, I’ve never considered this community a solo effort. I may be the leader of the tribe, but the participants provide so much of the value.

Did you do much research prior to launching Solo PR, such as examining similar endeavours and/or potential competitors?

Since I’ve been solo since 1995, colleagues often asked me for advice about what it was like to “go out” on your own. When friends kept asking for blog recommendations to read on this topic – and there really weren’t any – I realized it was time for me to start such a blog.

Before launching the Solo PR blog in 2008, I did do a lot of research. Believe it or not, at that time there wasn’t really a dominant term for independent PR professionals, so deciding on the name/domain was a challenge in and of itself. It’s gratifying for me to now see so many colleagues refer to themselves as “Solo PR” practitioners.

When considering competitors, I didn’t see currently established industry associations as competition. I still don’t. Local networking groups of independent PR practitioners are very helpful, and Solo PR doesn’t replace such groups. Also, Solo PR tends to be quite broad and unlimited in the topics and areas we can cover, so there’s plenty of room for more specialized information from other groups.

Detail the history of Solo PR in terms of your rollout and timeline in implementing the various platforms.

The #solopr Twitter chat and hashtag (which is used non-stop for information sharing, not just during its one-hour Wednesday dedicated chat time) was launched in September 2, 2009 – approximately one year after I started the Solo PR blog.

The Solo PR Pros LinkedIn group was added just two weeks later; it offers a place for the community to ask more intricate questions and receive more detailed answers from the community in response. The Linked In Group has proven quite popular and, just this week, we’re launching the following regional subgroups:

• Europe
• Middle East/Africa
• Asia

As is often the case, the sub-groups sprang from a suggestion from an existing Solo PR community member.

There’s a Solo PR YouTube channel, which currently houses the video interviews I’ve conducted for the Solo PR blog. It’s been a while since I’ve done one of these and I haven’t fully exploited the channel, but it’s not because they haven’t been well-received.

The Solo PR Pros Facebook page has only been around since March 2010; it’s a nice addition to the community.

Have the #solopr chats and various supporting platforms evolved as you anticipated?

Basically yes, although I had hoped that the Facebook page would be more interactive, with Solo PR community members posting their own photos and success stories to the page without any prompting. This tends to happens only if I ask a question – or cajole friends into posting pictures! I suspect this is the nature of the beast, because I’ve seen a similar level of interaction on other blog-related Facebook pages. Still, a fair number of people interact with the blog posts from the Facebook platform, so it continues to be worth doing.

It’s all about offering your content on multiple platforms, so participants can access it in the ways that are the most convenient to them.

What kind of quantitative data can you provide about Solo PR?

To date, measurement of Solo PR has not been my strong suit – but it’s on the “to-do” list! Soon, we’ll be conducting a poll of the Solo PR community to gain more hard data. I also plan to cross-reference the lists of participants on the various channels to determine how much overlap we have. So stay tuned on this front.

Regarding demographics, those who “Like” the Facebook page (formerly known as Fans) are 75 percent female and 25 percent male, and I deduce this gender breakdown holds true for the real-time #solopr chats. Interestingly, men participate much more in the LinkedIn group.

The age range is all over the map, which I think is great. I estimate 20 percent of the Solo PR community across the board is based outside the U.S.A. One goal is to see that last percentage number increase.

In any given week, how much time would you estimate you spend on Solo PR and where is the majority of that time devoted?

In a week when my time is especially limited, I probably spend a minimum of four hours on Solo PR activities. The blog is definitely the biggest time commitment – and no matter how much you give to it, there’s always more that could be done.

It’s frustrating to have so many ideas and not enough time to implement them, but I guess that’s better than the alternative!

The July 28, 2010, #solopr chat asked participants [Q3] to indicate what they got out of Solo PR that they didn’t get from any other organization or group. Did you anticipate any answers that didn’t materialize? Alternatively, were any answers particularly gratifying?

I wasn’t surprised the fact that Solo PR is “free” wasn’t among the more prominent answers, because for solo PR pros time is their most valuable asset. I believe the fact that this community of people spends their precious time to share and learn from each other is part of the magic of the weekly #solopr chat. [Editor’s note: each week ends with numerous tweets of thanks and testimonials as to how much the #solopr chat is valued.]

However, a few participants answered Q3 by mentioning that their budgets didn’t allow them to purchase a variety of books, seminars, etc. that were solo-PR related, and indicated that #solopr fills that void for them. I was thrilled to read those responses, especially as I know many PR pros out there are “lurking” during the chats as they contemplate their move to independence.

The most re-tweeted response to Q3 was also my favorite; it came from Jenny Schmitt (@cloudspark), who wrote:

At times the #soloPR chat is an online classroom, a coffeehouse, a debate hall or a much-needed recess break.

For more Solo PR community members’ feedback on this question, refer to the Q3 answers from the transcript of the July 28th #solopr chat.

How have you benefited, professionally and personally, leading this endeavour?

When I started Solo PR, I sort of felt called to do it – like the universe aligned all the planets and I had no choice but to jump in! I can say that it’s the most gratifying experience of my career, and I love getting to interact with so many wise and amazing people.

Professionally, I’ve received a number of business referrals, new partnerships and other opportunities as a result.

Moving forward, I plan to offer some paid ebooks and coaching on the Solo PR Pro blog, which will provide me with the resources and time to do more for the community.

How do you separate or differentiate the Solo PR brand from that of Kellye Crane’s?

The question on how much I should, personally, be front and center in the Solo PR efforts is one with which I continue to grapple. Many bloggers have their photo displayed prominently on the home page, but at this point, I’ve chosen not to do that because I feel (as stated earlier) that the Solo PR “movement” is much bigger than me.

On the downside, I’ve had some people say they didn’t realize the blog is my personal one and that they might have paid more attention to it had they realized that fact. I’m planning a redesign of the blog to launch this fall, so we’ll see how it all plays out!

Outside of the independent PR practitioner sphere, how many noteworthy people or organizations in your life know about Solo PR? Additionally, have any industry groups or media outlets profiled Solo PR (or you) in the past?

I don’t know if other bloggers have this experience, but I was kind of surprised that no one in my family ever reads my blog! Ever. I think it’s pretty funny.

However, the response from the general (non-independent) PR community, as well as non-PR consultants, has been terrific. I think it’s because so many of the issues we address are applicable to others.

Solo PR hasn’t been the subject of a full profile like this one on PR Conversations, but we’ve been mentioned or linked to in many top, non-PR blogs (e.g., Web Worker Daily) and in industry publications like PR Week and PR Daily.

Any recommendations for others thinking of blazing their own social media trail through Twitter chats and supporting platforms?

Make sure you have a passion for your subject matter and a willingness to listen to suggestions from your community. Then go for it!

Finally, for individuals who are unable to participate in the weekly #solopr Twitter chats, how can they benefit from and contribute to Solo PR?

Other than the Twitter chat, every other channel we’ve discussed adapts very easily to other time zones.

In fact, even those who can’t participate in the chats live can take part, because the chat transcripts are posted each week in places like the Solo PR blog. Anyone is free to submit a discussion question to me (@kellyecrane or send me a Direct Message on Twitter), and then read the transcript for the answers.

* * *

The weekly #solopr chat is scheduled from 1-2 p.m. ET (North America) most Wednesdays. There is no requirement to register in advance – simply get online, follow the Solo PR Twitter account and/or #solopr hashtag and participate or lurk, depending on your comfort level.

For other Twitter chats, check out the Twitter Chat Schedule (a spreadsheet on Google Documents that is constantly being updated). It is maintained by Robert Swanwick and can be accessed via the @twchat account. Yes, #solopr is on the list!
———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Kellye Crane, a 20-year public relations and communication veteran, has been operating independently as Crane Communications, LLC since 1995. She is a member of the Public Relations Society of America. Kellye teaches others how to be a PR consultant on her blog, Solo PR Pro. You can also connect with Kellye on Twitter, LinkedIn or by email.

Doug Lacombe, MBA, president, communicatto

“As for editorial content, that’s the stuff you separate the ads with.” —  Lord Thomson of Fleet

There are a lot of “tion” words being tossed about by Internet newsie types these days, the three most common being:

- syndication

- aggregation

- curation

The newfound ease of moving content around the Internet using such tools and techniques has led to a plethora of online publications, many with questionable quality and intent.

Lord Thomson of Fleet famously disparaged editorial content as “the stuff you separate ads with,” but in an era when content is theoretically king, using “pump and dump” cheap pseudo-editorial risks alienating readers and commoditizing (read: cheapening) the product. Publishers should shun the “tion” movement towards using Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds as cheap editorial to go around the ads if they wish to build long-term reader loyalty, which is the only font from which a business model can spring.

Syndication

Syndication was long the sole purview of wire services and news agencies, given the complexities of the antiquated and still in use ANPA format (American Newspaper Publishers Association) and the lack of an easily accessible network (i.e. the Internet). Then along came Extensible Markup Language (XML), its children HTML and RSS, and the Internet. Voila – standards for transport of content and a network to do it on were born. Now anyone can move content from website A to B, with free and open tools and little technical knowledge.

RSS in stealth mode

RSS is perhaps the least understood and most powerful form of content transport, possibly even outweighing the Reuters’ initiated NewsML (now under the stewardship of the International Press Telecommunications Council). NewsML was conceived around 2000 to replace ANPA and modernize news transport to include multimedia in news “packages.” It was proposed to editorial system vendors (I worked at one at the time) as the coming standard for “converged publishing.” A system vendor definitely couldn’t be left out.

Accordingly most major wires and news agencies converted to NewsML, but a funny thing happened on the way to media outlets adopting NewsML – the majority of their content migrated to the web and a new form of transport, RSS, stealthily took hold. Couple that with the well-documented economic woes of mainstream media, and recognizing that the only way NewsML takes hold is when editorial systems are upgraded (an increasingly unlikely scenario given the capital required), and you have the perfect conditions for RSS to flourish.

The problem is, it’s too darn easy, a veritable siren song to publishers trying to cut editorial costs to match the digital pennies they are swapping for print advertising dollars.

Example: HeraldEnergy.com

The first time I really noticed this was a few years back when the Calgary Herald launched HeraldEnergy.com. A fine little digital publishing experiment, it had one startling feature – news releases from Canada Newswire’s (now CNW Group) energy RSS feed were flowing onto its front page. At that time I was working for CNW, and I was thrilled that my clients’ news releases would get front-page coverage, but I was also aware a certain collision between church and state had just occurred. The Herald, to its credit, had oodles of original reporting as well as “journalistic wire” copy flowing through the site, so it was a fairly balanced experiment, but a radical change nonetheless.

News releases as news?

Around the same time commercial newswire BusinessWire (BW) decided to enter Canada in competition with CNW Group and Marketwire (the other existing, major player). Part of BusinessWire’s market launch promotion was the placement of BW’s news release feed onto prominent pages throughout Canada.com, something that at best can only be described as “advertorial.” Back in the day, news releases un-vetted by journalistic eyes would not grace the pages of any reputable publication, but the times they were a changin’.

Fast forward to current day and we have the familiar orange RSS “chiclet” icon appearing everywhere. From mainstream media sites to blogs, Twitter feeds, and Google searches, one can create a feed from almost anything. Forget mixed tapes or music and video mashups, now Yahoo Pipes allows us to do feed mashups. A little CBC, a dash of Postmedia, and a soupcon of CNN and – hey presto! – a custom feed.

Low-cost, automated news

And there’s the temptation: low-cost, automated news. Sounds good in theory right? Leech news from somewhere else and sell ads around it with none of the editorial cost? Or pump out commercial content under the veil of real news for other profit-making purposes? Lord Thomson might revel in such plentitude.

Only problem is, it doesn’t quite work. Once fully automated blog, Techmeme, discovered this in 2008 when its little robots reported Anna Nicole Smith had been hospitalized after she had been declared dead. Neat trick.

In her Mashable.com article “Can Robots Run The News?,” Sarah Kessler writes,: “While automatic news generators do a great job of compiling information that other people put online, those people still need to put it online. According to a 2010 Pew Research Center Study that tracked several news threads, 83 per cent of content was essentially repetitive. Of the 17 per cent of “news” that actually contained new information, nearly all of it came from traditional media outlets — a.k.a. people.”

I believe that unless publishers are prepared to add human aggregation and curation to the mix, they should shun syndication, lest they further commoditize the news business and strip away all value to readers and advertisers.

What do you think?

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Doug Lacombe, MBA, a 20-year media, marketing and Internet publishing veteran, is president of Calgary social media agency, communicatto.

Find out what else Doug has to say by reading his column and blog. Connect with Doug on his Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn accounts.

Photo: Jean-Pierre Dalbéra (cc-by-2.0)

1. What is your most striking characteristic as a PR practitioner?
To track down and explore new ways to communicate.

2. What is your principal fault as a PR practitioner?
Impatience and a (minor?) penchant for perfectionism.

3. What is your favourite occupation in PR?
Analysis, concepts – and putting them to test.

4. Why do you work in PR?
They didn’t have a job in Hollywood. PR is almost as entertaining.

5. What is your idea of PR nirvana?
Open-minded clients.

6. What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery in PR?
Being asked for deceptive maneuvers.

7. What qualities do you most admire in a PR practitioner?
The ability to listen and the willingness to learn new things every day.

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

9. Who would you describe as a PR hero or villain?
Heroes/villains are for novels, and they usually die an early and/or violent death. We are all humans, even in PR.

10. What do you most value in your professional contacts?
Willingness to share knowledge.

11. Have you ever been influenced by a PR campaign?
PR campaigns that try to improve social and/or environmental awareness usually have some impact.

12. Where would you most like to practise PR?
Ideally in a place with a pleasant climate, but actually I’m quite satisfied with where I am.

13. Has a novel, film, play or other work of fiction ever influenced you as a PR practitioner?
I’m usually more influenced by scientific literature, but numerous works of art have played an important role in shaping my personality.

14. Who do you think has great public relations?
All organisations that take stakeholder relationship seriously.

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

16. Who is your favourite writer?
Too many. But Kurt Tucholsky is primus inter pares.

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

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?
On a national level I’m a member of PRVA (Austrian PR association); on a global scale I am connected with a selection of PR pros and networks.

19. Where do you most like to do your professional networking?
It’s not a question of place, channel or quantity. Quality is at the core of my networking decisions.

20. What’s the best career decision you ever made?
To focus on the Internet as a place and means for PR as early as 1995.

21. What skills and abilities do you think tomorrow’s PR leaders need?
Analytical and strategic thinking, willingness to listen, eagerness to learn.

22. Which talent would you most like to have?
To play the Koto.

23. How would you like to end your PR career?
In good mental and physical health.

24. How would you describe the current state of public relations?
Transformation and re-orientation.

25. What is your PR motto?
First things first, but not necessarily in this order. No, wait: Think the impossible, plan the possible, do the right thing.

Toni Muzi Falconi commenting on two recent events recommends re-reading this document.  He writes:

The Bled Symposium this year was not up to the excellent standards that I am accustomed to expect from its organizers.  But this may also be due to the fact that I am biased.

Dejan Vercic had happily accepted Ronel Rensburg’s last minute suggestion to stage a post-Stockholm session with some of the world’s leading scholars to analyse the potential implications the Accords brief could, would, should have on education and professional training programs.  An excellent idea, I thought and with Anne Gregory and Ronel, we opened the discussion.

The first question which came up was

‘but what is pr?’

and the second

‘why do we insist in calling whatever we think it is PR’?

You will surely imagine that, for the next half hour, we hardly ever mentioned the Accords or their implications on education…..as the discussion went back some twenty years, before the European Body of Knowledge and the Bled Manifesto, contributions which were so instrumental in elevating the quality of our profession worldwide.

We participated to a sort of cultural ‘regression’, most probably due to the fact that we were all exhausted by two days of papers and presentations….

Last week I also had the privilege of presenting the Accords in New York at a luncheon hosted by the PR League, the student association of NYU’s Masters in Public Relations and Corporate Communication.  Some 25 students, 5 faculty members and a few guests (John Paluszek, Don Bates, David Rosen and others).

Once more, the first question:

‘but what is PR?’

and, as students seemed more interested in learning about what was new in the Accords, the faculty and guests insisted on the original sins and issues of our 20^th century profession.

These two events led me to remember that daring pdf published here some time ago with the title: What is PR?, so brilliantly edited by Catherine Arrow which puts together more than one year of  discussion amongst us, that brilliantly bridges and ‘creolizes’ old and new and leads readers to a better understanding of contemporary public relations.

As we well know, the long tail does not necessarily imply that any paper becomes definite.

And, of course, there is no definite answer to any question, let alone what a profession is about, in a period when all professional boundaries are crumbling.

The first International History of Public Relations Conference held at Bournemouth University proved the importance of discovering and analysing the many histories of public relations – as well as a need to revisit and reinvestigate the largely US history that has become myth in the retelling.  As Dr Robert L Heath noted, the conference was welcome revisionism and it clearly shone light on aspects that have been framed to present public relations as either hero or villain in the story of (primarily) the 20th century.

Embracing the Embarrassing

By those who champion it, Public Relations has been proposed as evolving towards the ideal of open, dialogic communications and relationship building between organisations and their publics.  Others see it as adopting a cloak of ethical practice, whilst in reality retaining its historical foundation of propaganda and manipulation.  The conference sought to reclaim history from Dr Karen Russell’s opening keynote: Embracing the Embarrasing through other papers which considered the role of PR in terrorist organisations, as well as countries with fascist, communist or nazi histories.  Other participants looked to original records (from Bernays to Page), with Dr Patricia A Curtin investigating the fascinating history of the Harvey Company which, she argued, reflected a level of social responsibility towards Native Americans albeit in the context of its times.

Real voices

Something that is lacking in the history of PR to date, according to Dr Jacquie L’Etang’s keynote address, is the author’s voice – and this is perhaps reflected in the fact that the focus has too often been on “great men”.  One fascinating discussion was around the role of Doris Fleischman who is sadly often only known in reference to her husband (Bernays).  This was enlivened by the personal recollections of living British PR legend Professor Tim Traverse-Healy who confirmed that Doris was the driving force with a liberal arts educated background, whilst Bernays was a “pirate” of other people’s ideas.

It was apparent that there are too few ordinary PR practitioners evident in the history of the profession – and little is researched about everyday work, as case histories tend to focus on specific incidents or high profile organisations.  There is clearly much potential for greater investigation – and comparative reflection – something noted in a call for the conference to become an annual event.  The good news is that Professor Tom Watson is keen to establish such an opportunity at Bournemouth.

What I hope will also come through more strongly in future years is a variety of methodology for looking at history of PR, particularly ethnography of practice.  As Dr Vince Hazleton observed, there is a need to seek original and contemporary data and reflect the complexity of PR’s role in society.  I look forward to both studying and participating in such a call.

Revisiting the Model of Excellence

We undoubtedly have to revisit the history that we are told in PR texts – and by that I include the work of Grunig and colleagues from the 1970s/1980s.  Models dating from that time are rarely put into the wider social context of their origination – whether that is the liberal agenda of the US education establishments in which they were conceived or the development of communications theories during the 2nd world war to post-Cold War era.

For me, the dominant paradigm espoused in the Model of Excellence should be reviewed alongside Tom Peters’ Search for Excellence and the corporate agenda of the 1980s/1990s.  Of course, the beauty of looking back is that it provides an impetus for moving forwards.  Public Relations needs this to prove that claims for evolution are not an embarrassment.

Brilliant conference

This was a brilliant conference – not least for the opportunity to meet in person many of the authors whose papers and textbooks have formed much of my own discovery of public relations.  In particular, I had the chance to have dinner on the last night of the conference with Phillip Young, Karen Russell, Jacquie L’Etang and Vince Hazleton.

During informal dinner chat, I not only learned how PR in the US is developing in new directions – something that isn’t always apparent from the published literature – but also of the dangers of kissing an alligator.  The personal anecdote related to how Vince had sold small alligators as pets whilst at school and one childhood friend reported being bitten after apparently trying to kiss the critter.  It might seem common sense not to seek affection from a sharp-toothed reptile but clearly this child decided to learn from personal experience.  In PR, the hands-on approach is often believed to be the only way to learn, but there is much to discover from our antecedents, and much promise for revisiting our own practices, no matter how recent history they might be.

Tim Marshall - calling for PR leadership in measuring world progress

Here’s an idea for the public relations and communications management profession to hang its hat on – and to show leadership.

Let us be the driving force to set up a Genuine Progress Index (GPI) for the world. A GPI is a set of indicators that show whether the world is making progress socially, environmentally and, let’s say also, scientifically and technologically.

Instead of being the god we bow to, let’s make economics the servant of pursuing progress goals in these areas.

For too long our measure of success has been economic growth – usually as measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of nations. But growth in GDP requires even higher production and consumption and, at a time when the world is rapidly running out of resources, this simply does not compute.

The GPI concept is not crazy. Simon Kuznets, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and principal architect of the GDP warned 40 years ago: “The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income”. Robert Kennedy said: “GDP measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

Last year, French president Nicholas Sarkozy, recognising the shortcomings of GDP for measuring France’s progress as a nation, commissioned Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz to create the Commission for the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress to suggest alternatives.

A number of prototype GPI models exist including the Full Cost Accounting model of GPI of Dr Ron Colman of Nova Scotia, Canada. The OECD has a work stream on Measuring and Fostering the Progress of Societies. Statistics New Zealand in a 2008 report ‘Measuring New Zealand’s Progress using a Sustainable Approach’ included a set of indicators. New Scientist magazine, which for years has warned that economic growth is incompatible with the Earth’s limited resources, last year ran a four issue special which included a double page spread of global, social and environmental indicators.

Why should a GPI be the concern of public relations and communications management? In fact, it is properly the domain of leaders – organisational and national – but they need a mandate from stakeholders or help to promulate the concept. We need radically new thinking about how we not only live within the Earth’s resources but continue to advance. Having a GPI that we talk about and care about is central to this – “you treasure what you measure”.

Achieving a shift from an “economic growth mentality” to a “genuine progress mentality” will possibly be the biggest and most critical stakeholder engagement exercise of all time and obviously, that is where we, as public relations and communications professionals come in. This is something we could endorse centrally, yet each of us can promote it within our organisations and our wider spheres of influence. To me, this is an idea whose time has come and, if it doesn’t happen, then we, our children and other life on Earth are all in serious trouble.

The catalyst for this thought has been the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management’s work on the Stockholm Accords, which aims to describe 21st century public relations practice for both practitioners and the people who use our services. For some time, I have also been quietly working away with a group called Anew New Zealand, whose interest is forming a widely agreed national vision, creating plans for that vision to be realised and measuring progress towards it using a GPI of some form – so to me it seemed as if two of my spheres of interest had converged.

Let me finish by reiterating my opening line: This is an idea, an opportunity for the public relations and communications management profession to hang its hat on – and to show leadership.

Tim Marshall describes himself (modestly, as is his way) as a New Zealand PR consultant with 25 years’ experience who believes public relations can and should be an agent for positive change in the world we live in.

PS: I can add, for your information, that in addition to his own description, Tim is one of New Zealand’s leading public relations professionals and thinkers, a Life Member and Fellow of PRINZ, the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand, who has worked tirelessly on behalf of the public relations profession and its practitioners throughout his career.