PR Licensing Debate Flares Again

Over the years, there have been a number of proponents of licensure for PR professionals, both in and outside the industry. The reasons vary, but proponents generally argue that licensure does a better job of ensuring standards consistency among practitioners in a way that accreditation, since it is controlled by one body, does not.

Now it appears the Public Relations Society of America is at least discussing the idea among its membership. Attendees to this year's national conference reported that PRSA Chairman Jeff Julin led a debate and discussion on this issue, although details were sparse since the PRSA didn't release a transcript of the conference or issue any other details on discussions to non-attendees.

Some like O'Dwyer columnist Wes Pederson seem to indicate that the First Amendment would be relevant, although it's hard to say what it's impact would be since commercial speech -- which is what PR would most certainly be considered -- is given far fewer protections than individual speech.

Since the disclosure of its discussion at the conference, several columnists have weighed in on the issue, on both sides of the fence. Most feel there's nothing inherent in licensing that leads to an assurance that either the quality of the provider or the service they deliver will certainly be higher.

It's difficult to fully comprehend what proponents of licensing would hope to achieve in the field of PR. For example, if an agency or consultant is charged with developing and executing a media relations campaign, they can't realistically guarantee any outlet or reporter will find a particular story angle interesting. While some might try to guarantee that in advance, which poses an ethical issue of sorts, it's hard to imagine how licensing would guarantee a higher level of success in media campaigns.

While it's easy to understand why licensing is preferred in certain professions like law, where a single mistake can cause tremendous and in some cases irrevokable damages, since most PR firms or consultants work on short-term contracts, it's fairly easy for a dissatisfied client to seek new counsel. Given that fact, perhaps it's best to let the free market rule.