Ok, so I would have enjoyed winning last night's reputation online award for Greatest Contribution from an Individual. But losing to @wadds isn't the end of the world.
He's passionate about social media -and he understands it too, which isn't always the case in our industry. He's also a PRCA member -which means I can find a reason to celebrate my own vanquishing.
So -here's to you @wadds -you deserve it!
Friday, 24 September 2010
Friday, 10 September 2010
Chris Whitehouse Is Just Wrong
Chris Whitehouse, MD of The Whitehouse Consultancy is on the soapbox in this week's PR Week, with a precis of a longer article first published earlier this month. He's returning to his favourite topic -bashing his own industry. I know he is passionate about standards in public affairs, but it does nonetheless strike me as a strange way to address your profession.
Allow me to make a riposte. I make no apology for it being direct.
He states that "The first time there is a lobbying scandal that involves a company or individual included on the statutory register, the media will generate pressure for the culprit to be punished". Correct. "With no statutory authority to insist on a minimum standard of behaviour and with no scale of sanctions available, the authorities will be powerless to act". Absolutely incorrect. There are standards -set by the PRCA, CIPR and APPC Codes. There is a scale of sanctions -again, set out in our Codes. The 'authorities' (slightly strange word but I'll let it pass) do have the ability and the appetite to act.
I'm never quite certain if the people who wheel out this 'self-regulation is no regulation' line are deliberately being inaccurate, or just haven't bothered to look at what the self-regulatory bodies actually do. Our Code covers all PRCA member employees. It includes a clear, fair and robust disciplinary process. We enforce it rigorously. We have a range of sanctions available all the way up to public expulsion. We are more than willing to use them.
It's a pretty straightforward situation.
The ridiculousness of the industry beating itself up is that there are plenty of other people happy to do so -we really don't need to add to their numbers.
There certainly is a debate to be had about regulation, but it will be a rather more productive one if it includes some facts.
Allow me to make a riposte. I make no apology for it being direct.
He states that "The first time there is a lobbying scandal that involves a company or individual included on the statutory register, the media will generate pressure for the culprit to be punished". Correct. "With no statutory authority to insist on a minimum standard of behaviour and with no scale of sanctions available, the authorities will be powerless to act". Absolutely incorrect. There are standards -set by the PRCA, CIPR and APPC Codes. There is a scale of sanctions -again, set out in our Codes. The 'authorities' (slightly strange word but I'll let it pass) do have the ability and the appetite to act.
I'm never quite certain if the people who wheel out this 'self-regulation is no regulation' line are deliberately being inaccurate, or just haven't bothered to look at what the self-regulatory bodies actually do. Our Code covers all PRCA member employees. It includes a clear, fair and robust disciplinary process. We enforce it rigorously. We have a range of sanctions available all the way up to public expulsion. We are more than willing to use them.
It's a pretty straightforward situation.
The ridiculousness of the industry beating itself up is that there are plenty of other people happy to do so -we really don't need to add to their numbers.
There certainly is a debate to be had about regulation, but it will be a rather more productive one if it includes some facts.
Friday, 3 September 2010
The Internship Challenge
The issue of how we reward interns for their efforts is being discussed again, and seems all the more stark given the currently weak state of the jobs market, and the reduction in university places available. PR Week for instance, carries an analysis piece this week, including some comments from me. In the same issue, it also runs a piece entitled 'public believes degrees are ten-a-penny'. The juxtaposition is interesting
My old CIPR boss Colin Farrington had a pithy little line 'the best can be the enemy of the good'. I guess he might have deployed it here -would the challenge that some have made for all internships to be well paid run the risk of simply reducing the total number of internships available? That certainly wouldn't help either us as an industry, or the people trying to get their first break.
But equally an industry of slave labourers isn't what we want either -in fact, it shames us. It certainly serves as an unwelcome filter, blocking the path of those unable to afford the luxury of working without pay. As a student, I turned down an unpaid internship with the think tank Politeia -I'd have loved to have worked there, but I couldn't afford to. So I do recognise the problem.
This conundrum is all the more acute given the economic uncertainty we still face. At the PRCA, we think it is just one aspect of the wider challenge of ensuring that the very best available talent sees PR as an attractive, rewarding, open industry industry. It encompasses deep issues such as ethnicity, gender, disability, class. It isn't an issue that is amenable to simple, quick solutions, and we certainly don't believe that the answers are ready made.
But it is an issue we are committed to addressing. We will shortly be announcing the make-up of a commission to examine this challenge, and to come forward with practical recommendations. We cannot promise easy solutions, but we can promise effort and commitment.
My old CIPR boss Colin Farrington had a pithy little line 'the best can be the enemy of the good'. I guess he might have deployed it here -would the challenge that some have made for all internships to be well paid run the risk of simply reducing the total number of internships available? That certainly wouldn't help either us as an industry, or the people trying to get their first break.
But equally an industry of slave labourers isn't what we want either -in fact, it shames us. It certainly serves as an unwelcome filter, blocking the path of those unable to afford the luxury of working without pay. As a student, I turned down an unpaid internship with the think tank Politeia -I'd have loved to have worked there, but I couldn't afford to. So I do recognise the problem.
This conundrum is all the more acute given the economic uncertainty we still face. At the PRCA, we think it is just one aspect of the wider challenge of ensuring that the very best available talent sees PR as an attractive, rewarding, open industry industry. It encompasses deep issues such as ethnicity, gender, disability, class. It isn't an issue that is amenable to simple, quick solutions, and we certainly don't believe that the answers are ready made.
But it is an issue we are committed to addressing. We will shortly be announcing the make-up of a commission to examine this challenge, and to come forward with practical recommendations. We cannot promise easy solutions, but we can promise effort and commitment.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
PRCA and the Newspaper Licensing Agency -an update
The following statment was issued to all members earlier this morning:
We understand that the NLA has asked a number of PRCA members to provide witness statements for use by the NLA in its High Court proceedings against the PRCA.
As you know from previous alerts, Meltwater News referred the NLA's Web Database Licence (WDL) and the Web End User Licence (WEUL) -i.e. the one PRCA members are asked to sign by the NLA- to the UK's Copyright Tribunal in December 2009. Amongst other things, Meltwater is arguing that end users should not need to pay the NLA for receiving and clicking on links sent as part of an online news monitoring service. The PRCA intervened in January 2010 in support of Meltwater's case on this point.
In May 2010, the NLA decided to sue both Meltwater and the PRCA (as a representative of its members) for copyright infringement. Amongst other things, the NLA is seeking a declaration that the PRCA's members require (as a matter of law) a licence from the NLA to receive the Meltwater News service. This issue is going to trial before the High Court in November. It is in respect of this issue that the NLA is seeking evidence from PRCA members. That evidence will be used by the NLA to support its case that it is perfectly reasonable for the NLA to charge PRCA members for receiving and clicking on links.
As the PRCA is a defendant in these proceedings, we cannot and do not comment on whether or not you should provide any such evidence to the NLA. However, we do advise that you seek independent legal advice on the implications for you of providing evidence for the NLA before providing any evidence. In relation to any evidence given to support the NLA, the PRCA may ask witnesses to attend Court to answer questions about their evidence.
We understand that the NLA has asked a number of PRCA members to provide witness statements for use by the NLA in its High Court proceedings against the PRCA.
As you know from previous alerts, Meltwater News referred the NLA's Web Database Licence (WDL) and the Web End User Licence (WEUL) -i.e. the one PRCA members are asked to sign by the NLA- to the UK's Copyright Tribunal in December 2009. Amongst other things, Meltwater is arguing that end users should not need to pay the NLA for receiving and clicking on links sent as part of an online news monitoring service. The PRCA intervened in January 2010 in support of Meltwater's case on this point.
In May 2010, the NLA decided to sue both Meltwater and the PRCA (as a representative of its members) for copyright infringement. Amongst other things, the NLA is seeking a declaration that the PRCA's members require (as a matter of law) a licence from the NLA to receive the Meltwater News service. This issue is going to trial before the High Court in November. It is in respect of this issue that the NLA is seeking evidence from PRCA members. That evidence will be used by the NLA to support its case that it is perfectly reasonable for the NLA to charge PRCA members for receiving and clicking on links.
As the PRCA is a defendant in these proceedings, we cannot and do not comment on whether or not you should provide any such evidence to the NLA. However, we do advise that you seek independent legal advice on the implications for you of providing evidence for the NLA before providing any evidence. In relation to any evidence given to support the NLA, the PRCA may ask witnesses to attend Court to answer questions about their evidence.
Friday, 6 August 2010
The Guardian needs a fact check
Yesterday, the Guardian ran an 'investigative' piece about PR companies supposedly 'reputation laundering' for oppresive regimes.
They should buy a dictionary. Their view of 'investigative' is essentially to start with a prejudice; add a bit of speculation; throw in a cropped quotation. And -bingo! A front page story!
So let us be clear:
PR is a 'growing market'. Not in terms of working for overseas governments, but because it's a growing discipline across professional services.
It's *previously* autocratic governments that are now democracies which realise they need to talk with their populations, rather than just dictate to them.
And I make no apology for London being a global PR hub. A hub for ethical, professional communications advice.
'Professional'. It's an important word. It's one the Guardian should look up in a dictionary. Because it certainly isn't a word that they understand right now.
They should buy a dictionary. Their view of 'investigative' is essentially to start with a prejudice; add a bit of speculation; throw in a cropped quotation. And -bingo! A front page story!
So let us be clear:
PR is a 'growing market'. Not in terms of working for overseas governments, but because it's a growing discipline across professional services.
It's *previously* autocratic governments that are now democracies which realise they need to talk with their populations, rather than just dictate to them.
And I make no apology for London being a global PR hub. A hub for ethical, professional communications advice.
'Professional'. It's an important word. It's one the Guardian should look up in a dictionary. Because it certainly isn't a word that they understand right now.
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Signing Up For The Voyage
As you might have read in PR Week, it's now public that I've committed to stay at the PRCA until January 2013 at the very least. It wasn't a particularly hard decision -I like to see things through, and despite the PRCA team achieving much over the past three years or so, I still think there's a great deal more to do. What have we done so far? Well....
Stage one was to steady the ship. I think we did that pretty well.
Stage two was to improve the offering. We did that too. Our business referral service FAPRA is enormously bigger than it was; our training beats the competition hands down in terms of quality and price; our range and quality of member services has never been better.
Stage three was to grow. Well, we've certainly done that -we now have twice the number agency members we had in 2007. We have in-house teams too. We have a freelancer network. We have international members.
And all the while to start offering the industry the leadership and support it has lacked so often and so noticeably.
So what's the next stage?
More of the above of course, but something else too. We need to set the direction of the industry rather than just comment on it. And with the team and the members we have, we can certainly do that.
We also intend to link up with like-minded, complimentary bodies. We have a number of those partnerships on the cards, and will be announcing them soon enough. The aim is to add value to our existing members, and to increase still further our relevance to our industry.
So the plan for the next two and a half years? Full steam ahead of course!
Photo credit: legenda-.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
Actually Doing Something On Diversity.....
I spent most of yesterday at the Ignite conference on diversity, supported and hosted by Edelman.
I'm not a great conference-goer it must be said. All too often, they're little more than talking shops to puff up the vanity of organisers and speakers alike. But I think yesterday was different. PRCA Board member and Edelman CEO Robert Phillips set the tone when he said that his aim was action not words. I couldn't agree more.
Robert spelt out precisely what Edelman will do to drive diversity, and in the same manner, I set out what the PRCA will do. We will do this:
*Establish a framework for paid internships, targeted at hard-to-reach groups
*Formalise our work with universities, again targeted to reach students who ordinarily wouldn't consider a career in PR
*Provide the first credible, robust statistics on the size and composition of the PR industry, to be refreshed every two years
All of this should help to ease access into the industry, and to allow us to track its composition as it moves forward. Much of this we will do with partners -undertaking the PR Census with PR Week for example.
But the most important thing that we will do is to work with other willing bodies to create robust evidence of the business case for diversity. That case is the missing link.
I am thoroughly tired of hearing speeches that claim there is a clear business case for diversity, but then signally fail to provide any evidence of that case. A sense of 'we should do this thing' will take the industry only so far -and it will do so very slowly. The most powerful driver for action is the one that includes Pound signs. That is why clear, financial measures of the business benefit derived from workforce diversity are absolutely essential if we are to widen access to the profession, so that it can benefit from all of the talent that exists.
A final comment. Diversity isn't just about ethnicity. It's about so much more than that. It's about age, about disability, about -dare we say the word- class. We pigeon hole and marginalise the debate when we limit it to being a question of colour alone. That's a mistake the PRCA will not make.
I'm not a great conference-goer it must be said. All too often, they're little more than talking shops to puff up the vanity of organisers and speakers alike. But I think yesterday was different. PRCA Board member and Edelman CEO Robert Phillips set the tone when he said that his aim was action not words. I couldn't agree more.
Robert spelt out precisely what Edelman will do to drive diversity, and in the same manner, I set out what the PRCA will do. We will do this:
*Establish a framework for paid internships, targeted at hard-to-reach groups
*Formalise our work with universities, again targeted to reach students who ordinarily wouldn't consider a career in PR
*Provide the first credible, robust statistics on the size and composition of the PR industry, to be refreshed every two years
All of this should help to ease access into the industry, and to allow us to track its composition as it moves forward. Much of this we will do with partners -undertaking the PR Census with PR Week for example.
But the most important thing that we will do is to work with other willing bodies to create robust evidence of the business case for diversity. That case is the missing link.
I am thoroughly tired of hearing speeches that claim there is a clear business case for diversity, but then signally fail to provide any evidence of that case. A sense of 'we should do this thing' will take the industry only so far -and it will do so very slowly. The most powerful driver for action is the one that includes Pound signs. That is why clear, financial measures of the business benefit derived from workforce diversity are absolutely essential if we are to widen access to the profession, so that it can benefit from all of the talent that exists.
A final comment. Diversity isn't just about ethnicity. It's about so much more than that. It's about age, about disability, about -dare we say the word- class. We pigeon hole and marginalise the debate when we limit it to being a question of colour alone. That's a mistake the PRCA will not make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
