global discussion. local perspectives.
Just when you think an issue is sorted, done, dusted and settled – up it comes again. The issue on my mind today is gender and its impact on public relations. I have attended three different events in roughly as many weeks and at each one, the issue of ‘feminisation of the public relations profession’ has taken centre stage.
Would a more ‘institutionalized’ PR function have performed a more useful function of warning and advising financial institutions over the last few years? I suspect not – because the process of institutionalization would have removed detachment from the PR function. This comment from Richard Bailey in a recent criticism of the Euprera Congress theme on its website, and even more so if you look at another post by Richard on the same issue on his...
I should warn readers in advance that this column is going to be a bit of a rant because I am very frustrated by many of my peers. If you ask people why they join a communications/PR association, many of the top answers include networking (usually number 1), career development and following best practice. Yet the majority of people do not attend events, never proactively contact another member and don’t even tap into the online...
On August 15th my quarterly copy of The Public Relations Strategist (published by the Public Relations Society of America) arrived. The Summer 2008 edition’s cover highlighted the feature article, “Where PR Belongs: A Move at Chrysler Spurs Debate.” The provocative title drew me in, so I literally dropped everything (but the magazine) to have a read. Although Chris Cobb’s article focuses on changes to the reporting structure at the US-based auto giant (a company that...
I got a bit over-excited with all the talk of spaces and what we do with them, so I have created a virtual world for PR Conversations if you want to grab your avatar and come on over to play.
I was fascinated to read Toni Muzi Falconi’s reflection on the London World Public Relations Festival on the 28th June 2008 and the subsequent comments. Oh what lather we get ourselves into, on both sides! Critical comment on one side and hurt pride and righteous indignation from the other.
At least that’s what members of the Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS) were told on July 8, 2008, in an e-mail blast (presumably) provided by US-based publisher director, Julia Hood, which announced the new PRWeek Canada newsletter. Although I certainly welcome the addition of Canadian-specific information (“news and features, trend stories, profiles, and Q & As with leaders in the industry”), the tone of the announcement did come across as somewhat condescending.
I owe a public apology to the PRSA and its leadership. I do not believe this should only go as a comment on the specifically relevant post but as a separate post.
The very selection of the overall theme ‘The public benefit of public relations’ reveals a strong affiliation with that ‘pr-for-pr’ thread of thought which, if one patiently recalls similar attempts…see the preceeding post on this blog..) has possibly done more harm to our profession’s societal acceptability than all recent social critiques bundled together.
As professionals, we know only too well how often we are called on to discover or even create reasonable opportunities for published visibility, as well as to rouse and galvanize internal/external stakeholder groups when a client or employer’s reputation is in a critical condition (or, more recently, even in business as usual circumstances). So what else is new?…..