Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Public Perception of PR Continues to Decline

There are certain professions that are always going to have a large number of people that hold a fairly high negative view of it; among them are teachers, doctors, lawyers and certainly public relations professionals. The reasons for those opinions obviously vary, but it probably has something to do with the fact that many of these professions are either seen as only operating because of there's a negative situation or because they get the spotlight during those times. They're also generally misunderstood because the average consumer rarely deals with them.

I and many others who follow public relations have written extensively on the need for public relations to have a strong advocacy organization, if for no other reason than to challenge and attempt to correct the negative misconceptions about the industry. Unfortunately in PR's case, efforts to do this are fragmented, in part because there are a number of different organizations serving the industry with different philosophies, and because the Public Relations Society of America, seems to have so much trouble managing its own reputation that it really can't be much of a strong voice for the profession as a whole.

Not surprisingly, there's new news that paints the public relations industry in a negative light. A recent Harris Interactive/PRSA Foundation survey indicated that 79 percent of respondents believe public relations practitioners are only interested in disseminating information if it helps their clients make money, and 85 percent believe PR pros sometimes present misleading information to journalists in an effort to further their clients' cause. On the bright side, 71 percent believe PR pros help raise awareness of issues that might not otherwise receive attention, and 56 percent believe PR agencies work with their clients to present fair and balanced information.

To anyone who works in the profession, the results aren't likely to be surprising. However, that doesn't mean that the industry shouldn't do a lot more to turn those opinions around. The PRSA would be the natural organization to help do that, but so far, it's generally been a no show. The best they've done so far, is to say the results show a misunderstanding of the profession. If that's not an understatement, I don't know what is.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

As Chair of PRSA's Advocacy Advisory Board and a member of the PRSA Board of Directors, I can say with all honestly that PRSA can do more and should do more, but to say we've done nothing is disingenuous. Since 2003 we've taken bold positions on key issues starting with Nike v. Kasky, the Armstrong Williams affair, The Lincoln Group issues, the F-H matter in LA, Front Groups, Paid Endorsements, FCC issues including indecency, media ownership and the VNR debate, etc. The very survey you quote is part of our effort. Just last year a The Wall Street Journal published the findings of a PRSA study on the need for more PR courses in our nations' leading MBA programs. PRSA was also on the only PR Professional Association to testify before the Senate's Commerce Committee. Today in fact, members of PRSA Advocacy Advisory Board are working with State Department Foreign Service Officers, helping to gain a better understand of public relations.

While PRSA takes its leadership role seriously, every PR professional has an obligation to be an advocate for the profession. In fact our PRSA code of ethics demands it. No PR person should wait on someone else to advocate for the profession, it's something we should all do, everyday.

Cyrus said...

Michael,

Thanks very much for your comments. While I don't disagree with the substance of your statement, I do wonder why the PRSA isn't more publicly proactive.

I've noticed that every time anybody posts something the least bit negative about the PRSA, the organization manages to find the blog. I understand that you're concerned about reputation management, just as any organization would be. But, if that's true, why has the leadership of PRSA been so publicly silent?

It certainly doesn't endear the profession to anybody when comments like Frank Rich's appear. He's obviously got a right to his opinion, but the PRSA should immediately be countering such things. And I honestly don't see that happening.

Another question: Why has PRSA's president been out of the spotlight in light of these issues?

I'd like to see some strong editorials and letters featured prominently when these types of issues appear. I just don't find a survey telling me something that I already know to be that valuable.

I truly do wish you well in your efforts and hope the organization becomes more of a force for the profession.

Anonymous said...

FYI ...the Blog entry August 22, 2006" Public perception of PR Continues to Decline" appears to be based on a recent erroneous article that ran in ODwyers web site. Other than the factual inaccuracies, it is critical to note that this research was conducted and released over a year ago.

No one can predict what a similar survey conducted in 2006 would reveal.

For background, in November, 2005 PRSA Foundation and Harris Interactive jointly announced results of a national survey, "Executive, Congressional and Consumer Attitudes Toward Media, Marketing and the Public Relations Profession," conducted among American consumers, Fortune 1000 executives and congressional staffers. Prepared by Harris, the results provided views toward the media and the public relations industry and assessed opinions of various marketing practices.

The arrival of Hurricane Wilma precluded these results from the scheduled release at the 2005 PRSA International Conference, in Miami. Subsequently results were released via a press teleconference followed by a broad base wire distribution. All but one of the trade press either attended the press event or scheduled a separate interview. An internal communications effort was also conducted via several PRSA outlets. The results were covered nationally and abroad in all types of media.(TV, Radio, News Web site, Blogs, newspapers, etc.)

The comprehensive media kit can still be found in the PRSA media room at: media.prsa.org.

If you ever need any information on PRSA in the future, please give us call or drop us an email. We are happy to help.

Anonymous said...

Before leaving PRSA in disgust, I spent many years in the organization, doing what I could to help it defend the image of PR (and working internally and behind the scenes to try to improve the orgianization).

As I said, I gave up in disgust after years of trying ... and my disgust is aimed at the leadership of PRSA, which has done more to let down it's membership than any similar organization I've been aware of (short of some union organizations that have been riddled with corruption). I do NOT believe that PRSA is riddled with corruption - that's not my point - but I do believe that PRSA couldn't ill-serve our profession any more than it does without a healthy dose of corruption.

Some specifics:

The mis-management of the 2005 Annual Meeting debacle and the PRSA leadership's "MIA" over that issue

The staff decision to locate headquarters permanently in Manhattan, in spite of the ruinous costs thereof

The ongoing disconnect between the leadership and the membership - PRSA seems focused on serving PRSA, not PRSA members or the industry at large

The society's MIA status in addressing things like Frank Rich and the NYTimes' views of PR (in spite of Michael Cherenson's comments, PRSA's "advocacy" in the matters he mentioned were, to me, limited, self-serving and ultimately ineffective).

Bottom line: The organization I once so highly valued has fallen on hard times - and it seems constitutionally incapable of pulling itself out. I used to respect PRSAY - I was, for instance, in '78, the youngest person ever - to that date - who earned accreditation ... and since then I've written books on PR and taught PR in universities and actively supported PRSA during all of that ... for all the good this support ultimately did - but now, I wonder why.

When I see more self-serving knee-jerk (and seemingly form-written) defenses of PRSA in blogs like this ... without seeing PRSA actually DO anything positive in the larger world ... well, this just reinforces my beliefs that our industry needs a real professional organization, one that represents the members and the trade, rather than the staff and the insular leadership.

Or so it seems to me ...

Ned Barnett, APR
* Marketing/PR Fellow, American Hospital Association
* PR Adjunct Professor, MTSU & UNLV
* Author, nine published books on PR and marketing communications
* Barnett Marketing Communications
ned@barnettmarcom.com

Greg said...

Cyrus, great post - hell, great blog, and I'm ashamed to say I hadn't been following it before. That will now change.

One reason PRSA might not be fully up to the task is that they've been a historically inward-looking organization focused on networking and professional development - that's the sort of DNA-level stuff that takes a long time to really change. Mind you, looking inward has been a matter of no small amount of survival over the last several years because of accounting irregularities and whatnot, but both before and after that period, it seems to me the focus is on professional development to the exclusion of much else.

I can't fault the organization for this approach - it brings members and money in the door and, whether we agree with them or not, it probably reflects the priorities of most of the membership base.

Part of the issue: The reputation of PR and its practitioners erodes slowly and on a case-by-case basis rather than through centralized, highly visible or highly causal events. If our profession were the subject of Senate hearings or potential federal regulation, then we would have evolved defensive mechanisms to deal with such things, which are politically symptomatic of (among other things) eroded marketplace trust.

We - all of us - don't have that because we - too many of us - haven't seen the need. If PRSA is the wrong torchbearer for fixing this issue (and, sadly, I fear it may be), part of the reason lies in their roots as a member-service organization focused on the member-as-individual (rather than the member-as-business-entity) model. Although the reputation of our industry affects all of us as individuals, protecting the reputation industrywide is a business issue. I'd have more faith/hope if a business-oriented organization like the Council of Public Relations Firms took up the issue or - even better - if they partnered with PRSA in a meaningful (and that means a plan, a budget and shared expenses) way.