PR and Publicity - history's feedback

In earlier blogs, I have argued that PR (in its strategic/organisational form) should be separated from publicity. It may not be a fashionable view but going back into the history of public relations, early practitioners saw a clear separation.

In 1942 (yes, 70 years ago), Herbert M. Baus wrote of public relations that “it involves all the dealings of an enterprise with the public. More limited, publicity involves placing of information before the public through established channels.”

“Public relations is becoming an established domain of business activity … as a career, public relations is one of the most reputable.”

Shortly after in 1948 Glen and Denny Griswold, who was the doyenne of US public relations, commented: “Public relations is the management function which evaluates public attitudes, identifies the policies and procedures of an individual or organization with public interest, and executes the program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance.”

So what happened to public relations’ standing as a valued management function? With the rise in consumer marketing in the mid-century, publicity was rebranded as PR.

British historian Jacquie L’Etang writing of the 1960s says: “business managers saw public relations as a cheap way of getting media coverage in comparison with advertising.”

And that’s the way PR remains for many – “a cheap way of getting media coverage”.

Baus, H. M. (1942). Publicity – How to plan, produce and place it. New York: Harper & Brothers

Griswold, G. and Griswold, D. (1948). Your public relations. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.

L’Etang, J. (2004). Public relations in Britain. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reputation and PR

I've been following the various debates on blogs (PR Moment, Wadds, etc) and in PR Week (May 17) about the reputation of public relations. 

Much of the discussion has been about the virtues of PR and how these can be expressed, rather than showing understanding of "reputation". For at least 20 years, some PR operations have portrayed themselves as "reputation managers" which has also demonstrated little understanding of reputation.

There is a lot of research and literature on this topic. Much of it is worth reading and comes from outside PR and organisational/corporate communications, as many sectors and disciplines consider that reputation relates to them or their responsibilities.

For example, a 2007 article in the Harvard Business Review specifically argued that one person in each organisation should be in charge of reputation and it should not be "people holding top 'spin' jobs such as heads of marketing and corporate communications" (Eccles, Newquist & Schatz, 2007, p.114). These authors also excluded corporate lawyers but proposed COO, CFO, heads of risk management, strategic planning and internal audit as suitable because "they have the credibility and resources necessary to do the job" (p.114). Marketers and communicators were unsuitable because they hold responsibilities which have potential conflicts of interest.

Moving on to reputation itself, US management academic Paul Argenti and Bob Druckenmiller (of Porter Novelli) defined it as: “the collective representation of multiple constituencies’ images of a company built up over time and based on a company’s identity programs, its performance and how constituencies have perceived its behaviour” (2004, p.369). 

With a bit of decoding, they are making the case that reputation is given by stakeholders ("constituencies") to an organisation, sector or profession by stakeholders because of its behaviour over time. It's not created by a promotional campaign, such as "a traditional PR campaign" or "doing better PR for PR", as proposed in the PR Week commentaries.

After reviewing all the recent comments, I'd support Lord Bell's assertion in PR Week that "the reputation of the PR industry should be based on what it does well or badly" and his focus on "the strategic importance of the business" (PR Week, May 17, p.25)

PR will build its own reputation over time through excellent strategic work undertaken by well educated, creative practitioners, operating in an ethical environment, who create value for their clients or employers. If PR continues to play in the publicity field with loose ethics, then it will get the reputation it deserves.


References
Argenti, P.A. and Druckenmiller, B., 2004. Reputation and the corporate brand. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(4), 368-374.
Eccles, R.G., Newquist, S.C. & Schatz, R. (2007). A framework for measuring reputational risk. Harvard Business Review, February 2007, 104-114.

Are PR associations past their 'sell-by' date?

As there is a real debate-led CIPR presidential election campaign in the UK, it's time to ask whether PR associations perform any real purpose other than ensuring their continued survival.

They can offer benefits but I am unsure whether they do so at present. I'd welcome the views of the CIPR presidential hopefuls, Stephen Waddington (@wadds) and Jon White (@drjonwhite) about how CIPR or a refreshed version would perform.

My membership of CIPR goes back 30 years, so I should declare an interest here. What follows may lead you to ask "why are you still subscribing to it?" Good question!

The purpose of professions is seen in two perspectives - maintaining status quo and playing a positive role in society (functionalist) and self-promoting and restricting entry to the field (revisionist). Jo Fawkes has written recently that "traditionally professions secured (or at least asserted) public trust by virtue of their professional status (body of knowledge, extensive training, extra-moral ethical standards)".

Some commentators consider that the concept of professionalism, often called the "professional project", is under threat and professional identity is in crisis. Professional bodies, they say, are  bureaucratic mechanisms to promote exclusivity and monopolistic practices.

As CIPR is largely inward looking, is doing little to build PR's body of knowledge, is not able to control entry to the field and has a difficult ethical stance to maintain, its main contribution to the professional concept is training. However, it is not alone in either offering training or setting standards. PRCA and numerous training companies offer the same services, not forgetting the extensive university sector.

So what is the purpose of CIPR if it is not able to offer the objectives of most professional bodies? And it can't achieve the negative aspects (according to revisionist critics) of restricting entry to the field to those of established knowledge and professional standing. 

All evidence of recent studies is that PR=publicity and is practiced as a craft, not a profession.Recently, I wrote about inspecting 70 papers that reported on PR practices in UK organisations. I can't think of one that demonstrated high professional standards. Reading entries to CIPR's own AVE-laden PRide regional awards reinforces that impression. PR is not practiced as a profession by many CIPR members, let alone the 85% who aren't.

In an earlier post (http://fiftyonezeroone.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/prs-future-sing-along-with-tammy-wynette.html), I discussed the separation of strategic/organisation communication from PR/publicity. If CIPR wants to renew as a genuinely professional body, that is a serious option to consider.

So my question to the two candidates is: what would they do to develop the professional project for public relations in the UK of, if is is bust, how would they reorganise CIPR for a post-professional organisation age? At 65 years old, CIPR is an OAP. Retirement may be a valid option.

• My thanks to Jo Fawkes's article, "Interpreting ethics, public relations and strong hermeneutics", published in Public Relations Inquiry, 2012, Vol. 1, No. 2, 117-140 for its discussion of professionalism.