(BTW, I am not
campaigning for either CIPR presidential candidate. I know both Jon White and
Stephen Waddington and wish them well. It’s a benefit that in 2013 there is a
civilised debate taking place).
Despite groans
from one contributor that a “Professor of Public Relations” might actually be
involved in discussion and debate, I have analysed the posts from more than 20
practitioners on this site, the LinkedIn debate and some other blogs (e.g.
Stephen Waddington’s “Wadds” and Heather Yaxley’s “Green Bananas”).
These are the
headlines:
1) There’s no concept of what ‘professional
PR’ or professionalism is in UK public relations practice. It’s a vague sort of
aspiration that has no dimensions;
2) About half the respondents consider CIPR should enforce a CPD policy as a
requirement of continuing membership. It
should make entry more (rather than less) demanding.
3) Some consider that CPD is too loosely
applied at present; others think enforcing it would be a step too far and “would pull up
the ladder” on good members who are less committed or able to spend time on training and continuing
development.
4) About half believe that there should be a
PR body of some sort, preferably only one. It should be less costly, less London-centric,
offer cheaper training and more benefits. It should be more engaged with
stakeholders, but less with internal issues. Others were much less supportive
and considered CIPR to be past its expiry date like many club-type
organisations. “I think the CIPR should hear the clock ticking”, wrote one
contributor.
5) The majority consider that CIPR does not campaign for PR practitioners and their
businesses. (PRCA, however, should be congratulated on its battle with NLA which has been successful in the Supreme Court).
6) CIPR's stance on ethics is soft
and relativist. Johanna Fawkes’ comment that “weak engagement with ethics undermines
a lot of claims (that PR has) a social benefit, and that most Codes, including
CIPR’s, are general statements of intent rather than moral guidelines” captured
this.
Overall, there was an undefined feeling that a CIPR-type body should exist but there were no convincing arguments about its purpose or objectives.
Finally, a personal
observation of mine on a comment that CIPR be “a provider of hard evidence of
PR’s value”. Surely, that is the practitioner’s role to develop campaigns that
create value that is recognised by clients and employers. Even if CIPR bestrode the whole communication landscape, it could not deliver what
practitioners should be doing through application of research, planning, best
practice and applied theory.
For at least two
decades UK practitioners have had readily accessible information on research,
planning and evaluation but have mainly chosen to ignore it for quick fixes like AVEs
and other junk data.
