Follow Up to Bad Pitch Blog Post

I urge everyone who read not only my post on the Bad Pitch Blog entry commenting on a pitch that had not yet been sent to the media to visit not only the comments section of my blog for an update, but also to visit the Bad Pitch Blog itself for additional comments from Kevin Dugan.

I mention this in my comments, but I also want to point out the fact that I missed where the BPB itself mentioned that the post was a proposed pitch. Part of this confusion was due to the fact that, as Kevin admitted, the BPB has not set out a "rules of engagement" policy for what it publishes and does not publish. However, the BPB does consider a proposed pitch fair game. As long as that is known, then that’s their option.

I hope this post clears up any confusion about the entry, and I again urge any practitioner to regularly visit the BPB.

Bad Pitch Blog Goes Too Far

The Bad Pitch Blog was launched earlier this year with considerable fanfare, as people both inside and outside the industry were curious to see the impact that a blog promising to call people out on bad pitches would have on the industry.

While reaction to its launch was mixed, most PR professionals recognized the value that the blog could have in highlighting the mistakes made by a few practitioners that on occasion manage to tar an entire industry. And since its launch, the blog has been filled with examples of pitches that any honest and/or capable practitioner would admit were hardly “ready for prime time” to put it mildly. As is the case with any critical body of work, there will be times when someone’s efforts go too far, and The Bad Pitch Blog made its first misstep of that kind this week.

An entry on the blog on Monday chronicled a pitch that carried the subject line “What Do Katrina Victims and Osama (Bin Laden) Have In Common?” The body of the entry contains the words “here’s what I’m considering,” which was probably confusing to many, but speaks volumes. Why? The entry, which someone who subscribes to any one of several PR-related Yahoo! Groups forwarded to The BPB, merely makes an effort to sound members out about what the contributor said was admittedly a risky approach to a PR pitch.

I, and several others who are members of those groups, cautioned the contributor against using it, and in the end, he rewrote the pitch so that it would carry a different headline that better emphasized the work his non-profit client was doing in a more straightforward way.

The big problem with this blog entry is nowhere does it contain any phrasing to identify the fact that it was lifted from a Yahoo! Group and that it never made its way to any reporter or editor’s inbox or voice mail. I and several others have submitted comments to the BPB since discovering the snafu to clarify the situation, but as of yet, none have been posted.

Again, I want to emphasize that I approve of the concept of the BPB and respect the co-creators of the blog. But just as it’s important to call PR pros out on mistakes, the BPB needs to develop a system of standards that ensures everything’s being done in a forward and proper manner.

Positive Effect of The Bad Pitch Blog

Ever since it was launched in January, the PR world has been abuzz about The Bad Pitch Blog, an effort by Richard Laermer and Kevin Dugan to "showcase" the worst the PR profession has to offer.

Not only did news of the blog's launch receive mentions in BusinessWeek, CNET and a host of PR-related publications and blogs, it also got well covered in the blogosphere. From what I read, most of the comments were positive, although some of that had to do with the fact that they came from journalists rather than industry professionals. Please note I'm NOT saying those opinions should be taken with a grain of salt; rather, I believe in reality the opinions of journalists matter far more than those that come from within the profession.

I've gotten into a lot of heated discussions over this point through the years, but I've never really bought into the supposed "symbiotic relationship" that some say exists between PR professionals and journalists. Don't get me wrong, journalists at all levels and outlets appreciate the assistance of a good PR pro. But, by the same token, any good reporter likely doesn't need assistance from anybody to do a story. In other words, if a company won't cooperate, because of the controversial nature of a story or any other reason, the reporter will find a way around that through the use of anonymous sources, regulatory and/or legal filings, etc.

Given that fact, I think the best hope for PR professionals and the industry in general is to position ourselves as a value-added service. By that I mean, we should work with reporters and view them as our friends, rather than the enemy, and do all we can to make their jobs easier. If we do, the relationships will go far. Journalists will understand that our hands may be tied by a situation beyond our control, and PR pros will appreciate the fact that journalists generally go out every day and do the best job they can. Obviously, that means a negative story will sometimes result. But, as long as the reporting is accurate and fair, we really shouldn't expect to ask for anything more.

Which brings me back to the Bad Pitch Blog... Anyone in the profession owes it to themselves to stroll by and read some of the entries. I should sincerely hope you'll be smacking your heads in amazement that stuff this bad actually went out. For I think we have less to worry about someone shining an unfair light on PR than we do about improving the work of the industry's professionals as a whole. Obviously, there's no way to know whether the bad pitches came predominately from "green" PR pros, but let's hope the attention will bring changes that will be truly good for everybody.

I gave a presentation last week to about 30 students at Farleigh Dickenson University, as part of a panel discussion on how writing is used in careers. One of the reasons I urged the students to develop the ability to write well is that writing is a skill that will serve you well, no matter what path your career may take, because good communication skills are necessary for most any job today. When asked about ways to improve one's writing, one tip I gave the students is to read all they can in the areas that interest them because reading good writing is one of the best ways to improve one's one writing.

Well, let's hope the same thing goes for pitches. Hopefully reading bad pitches will get the profession as a whole to re-examine this widespread notion that everybody's out to get PR and that journalists don't give PR pros a fair shake. After all -- if you received some of the e-mails in your in-box that have been prominately featured on The Bad Pitch Blog, would you have an opinion that was any more favorable?

The Shifting Media Landscape

Much was written on PR blogs following last week's announcements by Dow Jones Co. that it would merge its print and online operations. In its announcement, Dow Jones said it was making the move to essentially become a platform agnostic content messenger; in other words, the company would not favor one venue over another in the delivery of its content.

Following the announcement, many respected PR bloggers -- among them Richard Edelman, CEO of the largest independently-held shop in the business -- penned an article on his blog that examined whether this announcement would hasten the death of the traditional media model. He concluded, after speaking with representatives of Forbes and other media outlets, that while it will have more of an impact on daily outlets, like The Wall Street Journal than bi-weeklies, PR pros will have to adjust their approach to one that takes into account all available outlets, be it a traditional newspaper or PDA/cell phone screen.

While I certainly won't attempt to argue with the essence of his assertion, I don't know that we'll see a sea change from this. The main reason is because traditional outlets like The Journal have a reputation that other outlets have yet to achieve. That makes what they publish, and opine on their editorial pages, by extension, more valuable. Even in the heydey of the "dot-com boom," when Internet messaging boards like The Raging Bull got lots of coverage, no media offering could move markets more than a Barron's cover story.

All this is basically comes down to the fact that the age-old saying "the more things change, the more they stay the same." While I was one of a relative few who were downloading digital content from The WSJ via a custom software product and a dial-up modem some 10 years ago, Dow Jones' electronic offerings didn't take off until the launch of its Web-based edition.

What does that have to do with changes in PR? It means that, just as WSJ subscribers haven't abandoned the newspaper product, it's doubtful that clients of PR firms will abandon their quest to appear in top-tier media, even if appearing in a well-read trade would be better for their business. The PR business itself is responsible for this in large part, because everyone promises this kind of coverage in sales pitches for new accounts. So, if it doesn't take hold, to a degree, we only have ourselves to blame.

Debunking a Continual PR Myth

I was listening to a well-known technology pundit’s Web cast today when the subject of achieving publicity came up. The host indicated that press releases were the primary way that a company communicated news regarding its products to journalists and that basically all it took to achieve news coverage was putting out a media release.

For better or worse, this is one of the most widely-held beliefs related to a public relations campaign. Basically, many people believe that all it takes to achieve coverage is putting out a press release and, by extension, most anybody can steer a public relations campaign. However, anyone who’s actually been involved in a campaign can tell you first hand how nothing could be farther from the truth.

For starters, there are literally hundreds of press releases that cross BusinessWire and PRNewswire every day. There’s absolutely no way that a major journalist has time to read them all and cover the breaking news of the day. That’s one of the main reasons that I advise clients to use press releases sparingly. They’re a great fit for certain types of news, including executive appointments and announcements about a new round of funding. But in the vast majority of cases, a press release is going to be a poor way to communicate to journalists just what makes your news worthy of their attention.
In those cases, nothing is better than a simple, short, well-written pitch that quickly tells a journalist who your client is, what they have to say and why it merits their attention. It’s quick, simple and to the point. Better yet, there are no cumbersome attachments to bother with and journalists will love the fact that they don’t get any of those annoying “Did you get my press release?” phone calls.

It surprised me that someone whose supposedly on the other end of PR pitches would think there’s all there is to it, because I assure you that as someone who was on the receiving end of pitches for years, there’s lots more to getting good coverage than meets the eye.

Is Money the Way To Silence Annoying Messages?

By now, many of you have probably seen reports that America Online and Yahoo! have jointly discussed enacting a new “postage-based” system for Internet e-mail that would allow trusted messengers to be assured their e-mail arrives at its destination.

On the face of it, this sounds great. All of us have “in-boxes” that are swamped with spam and would love to have less of it. A technological solution is obviously appealing, because it eliminates the time-consuming chore of going through each message and deciding how to handle it.

While there will be considerable debate on this issue and how to best handle it, it brings up a broader point related to marketing messages. Companies like AOL and Yahoo, who both depend on the messages marketing and advertising generate for a large chunk of their revenue, risk devaluing those messages by charging, not for better or more costly content or other services, but for the right to exist without those messages.

Former FT journalist takes PR to task

Many of you have probably read about the comments made by former Financial Times reporter Tom Foremski regarding the future of public relations.

As you can see from his post, Foremski predicts that the public relations industry will be thwarted in its efforts, thanks in part to technologies such as search engines that allow companies to take their messages directly to consumers. He goes on to say this ease of reaching these customers devalues both media outlets and public relations. Foremski also makes the claim that PR is only good for egos, and does nothing for sales.

Now, none of this is really surprising. As I've written before, there's always been an uneasy relationship between the PR and media industry. And I've also been the first to say that the PR industry is responsible for a lot of the hurdles it faces in its dealings with the media. I've long thought that too much attention is focused on the "sizzle" and not enough on the message. As many of you know, I come at this from the perspective of having been on the journalism side as well. I spent a considerable portion of my journalism careerwas gained at CNN -- not exactly a hinterland existence. As such, I know what it's liked to be pitched constantly, and with a lot of stuff that's just not interesting.

But I believe Foremski's assertions on PR contain many inaccuracies. First off, there are many people in the industry who have no connection to products whatsoever. I don't do any consumer PR, so I'm not worried about hyping a product that may or may not be here tomorrow. It's precisely because there are relatively few innovational products that I don't do consumer. Also, Foremski's way off when it talks about ROI. Public relations gives clients an opportunity to reach the audience that's most suited for them rather than throwing as much stuff at the wall as you can, and hoping some of it will stick. That gives PR a much better chance at advertising for driving sales and revenues if you're a business-to-business firm.

I have high regard for Tom's former colleagues at the FT. They're very good journalists and they also have been very pleasant to deal with. I always stress that PR pros have to do their part by taking top-level journalists only things that they may legitimately be interested in. I fully realize everybody has more information to consume in a day than there is time, and I try very hard not to contribute to that overflow.

But I am also very proud of the many stories that I have taken to media outlets, on such important topics as homeland security, immigration, law, and other important matters, that may not have gotten published or received as much attention were it not for my efforts. I fully believe that the ideas I take to reporters are worth reading about, and I believe my success in securing front-page placements for clients in the FT and other outlets prove that point.

I noticed on Tom's blog he says he regularly speaks to PR firms and other groups to enlighten them about the subject of blogging. It seems odd to me that he would take the time to address an industry that he claims in another breath to be, for all intents and purposes, dying.

I suspect Tom either is going a bit far to make his point or perhaps got swept up in sentiment that was evoked by past dealings with PR pros. And again, from being on the other side, I can certainly understand that. It was painful to hear a great many of the technology pitches from PR pros during the dot-com boom. But that in no way should tarnish the whole industry. It will evolve like any other market, with those that provide value flourishing and rising above those who do not.

RIM Proves Oblivious to Rules of Crisis Communications

If you're reading this blog, chances are you have also seen several stories detailing the potential disaster that lies in waiting for users of Blackberry handhelds. The devices, manufactured and marketed by a Canadian company named Research In Motion, have been at the center of a long-running patent infringement dispute.

That dispute, which is rapidly coming to a head, could result in the shutdown of Blackberry Internet service to everyone but federal government employees. At issue are patents held by a NTP, a U.S. firm, covering the "push" e-mail technology employed by RIM's devices.

While most everyone, including the judge involved is getting sick of the story, its outcome is of critical importance to the growing number of people who use the devices. Opinions on an outcome vary, but most feel a shutdown of the service is likely, since that would also mean NTP would be making no money from RIM off those patents.

As this story has been playing itself out in the media, RIM itself has been largely silent, except to say that it remains confident in a legal victory and to re-hash its belief that its arguments are sound. It's no surprise that statements like that are being issued; what is surprising is how they're playing Russian roulette with their business as they employ that strategy.

Any business that faces a threat from legal action that could be tremendously damaging should use every alternative to use every venue to not only lay out its version of the case, but to use stronger language than "just trust us" when they're trying to convince users that everything will be OK. Not only is this essential for current users, but even more so for prospective customers who can choose from a variety of other solutions.

After the dust settles, little is probably going to be written about this case unless it sets some sort of legal precedent, which at this point appears unlikely. But there's a lot that could be said about how this is one of the worst way to communicate with customers, investors and other core constituencies.

Kudos to Jack O'Dwyer

While many in the blogosphere have been criticizing the PRSA's handling of the cancelation of its annual conference, the fact that PR -- unlike advertising -- doesn't get widespread coverage outside the trade press, has largely meant this issue has gone unnoticed by the business community as a whole.

However, several important industry publications and some well-known bloggers have taken the PRSA to task and written on it extensively. For those with access to the O'Dwyer Report, I urge you to read the collection of articles on this issue. It's probably not surprising to many who have been following this issue that the PRSA has not yet provided any official commentary for the O'Dwyer Report, which to me again prompts the question who counsels this group on crisis communications?

I don't know about others in the blogosphere, but my Web logs show PRSA representatives have visited this blog each time a comment about them has been posted. So if they can find their way to one blog out of many covering PR, one wonders why they can't be faster in responding to members?

Another Black Eye for the PRSA

As some of you may know, The Public Relations Society of America decided to cancel this year's annual conference due to Hurricane Wilma. The decision wasn't surprising, and was really the only sensible thing to do in light of the dangers the hurricane posed.

With the decision behind them, the PRSA sent out a statement that included a refund policy requiring anyone asking for refunds to write a letter detailing why they weren't able to attend the conference. Needless to say that demand set a lot of people off, especially given the fact that an organization whose members often offer counsel in crisis communications, sent it out. To everyone but the PRSA, giving refunds automatically was just as much a given as the decision to cancel.

It seems these days that the PRSA is increasingly unconcerned with the image it generates among not only people in the profession, but among its members as a whole. This policy has the potential to generate even more anger from those who have maintained for a long time that it needs to be more aggressive in formulating policies on such things as proper use of video news releases (VNRs) and writing standards governing how PR agencies should interact with government agencies.

It continues to amaze me how a professional organization such as the PRSA could be so blissfully unaware of the concerns of its members and their profession. Instead they continue behaving as a monopoly of sorts that operates with a "love it or leave it" mentality. Unfortunately for them, many people already have.

More PR/Publicity Confusion

Perhaps no two terms are more confused than public relations and publicity. Most people outside the industry consider them one in the same, even though there are many substantial differences between the two.

Although opinions on just what those differences are vary, generally publicists work on behalf of an individual or a group of individuals and are responsible for managing their reputation. That can mean both getting them into The New York Post's Page Six column or keeping them out of it.

Conversely, public relations often involves the representation of companies rather than individuals directly. That involves conventional media relations techniques, but can also mean setting up speaking engagements, seminars or even publishing a newsletter.

In the Oct. 14 edition of The New York Times, an article advises students considering a career in PR to get accustomed to handing out "booze and bling." I, and I dare say the vast majority of my professional colleagues, have never engaged in the practice of handing either either booze or bling. We also don't have to spend years cultivating celebrity types to get clients coverage.

No, real PR involves going to well-known outlets and well-respected reporters with real information that the public wants to read. This can consists of things like a company launching a service or product that will be beneficial to many, but it can also be having a well-known attorney tell readers about an impending law change that will affect a large group.

To be sure, like every profession, the PR industry engages in a lot of things that causes it to get a bad rap. But, having worked as a journalist for a decade, I can also say wholeheartedly journalism does the same thing on occasion. That doesn't mean that people in either industry are generally bad at their jobs; it means they unfortunately pay a heavy price on occasion for the sins of a very, very small number of people.

Just as the vast majority of journalists combat that by doing solid reporting and editing and filling a very valuable role in society, I also do that by giving those very same individuals news that they, and their readers, will find useful. As long as the majority in both professions do this, both are providing a valuable service.

Crisis Communication Plans

How many times have you experienced an unforeseen situation at work mushrooms into something much larger than you ever imagined? While this happens routinely, and there are many examples large and small, there's nothing worse than waiting to an actual crisis to have your crisis communications plan tested.

As most probably know, crisis communication plans are created to help a business respond to a variety of unforeseen situations. Depending on the industry involved, they could be in response to everything from a power outage or a natural disaster to an actual crime. One thing's for certain: You don't want to have your procedure for dealing with the communications aspect of a situation until you're staring one in the face.

An effective crisis communications plan conveys to customers and employees alike that, in spite of whatever's happening around the business, there's someone at the helm executing a plan that underwent much deliberation and consideration. It also avoids the situation where an employee will be put in a situation where they'll say something incorrect or unwanted that could lead to a torrent of bad publicity.

As businesses in New Orleans are learning now and as those of us in the New York area learned on Sept. 11 and with the blackout, it's never too early to plan for a crisis, but once a crisis is upon you, it's almost always too late to properly react.

Publicity Versus PR

Often I see a lot of confusion in the way the services of a public relations practitioner are described. The most common example is the thinking that public relations and publicity are one in the same. This is most typically portrayed by the people who are in a position to purchase the services of a PR pro, so I believe it's to the industry's advantage to clearly delineate the services of each.

Public relations involves wide-ranging programs, only part of which is media relations. Other services that are commonly used include the creation of newsletters and other external material, arranging speaking engagements and setting up meetings with industry and financial analysts. All of this works toward the overall goal of advancing understanding of a client's goods and/or services. In short, even when PR practitioners are dealing with intellectual capital, as they do when working with law firms, all the work they do is done on behalf of the entire firm, not just advancing the cause of one individual.

Publicity, on the other hand, involves the representation of an individual or a group of people and focuses more on the management of their reputation. So, for example, you'll see publicists trying to keep their clients both in and out of well-known columns like "Page Six," which appears in The New York Post.

Since many people who engage a PR pro's services are often doing so for the first time or have limited experience with this type of professional, it's to the industry's advantage to make sure everyone is clear on exactly what is and isn't part of a PR person's job and a PR program.

Journalist-PR Relationship Once Again Makes News

It's no secret to anyone who's in either public relations or journalism that the relationship between the two professions can be somewhat strained at any given time. Much has already been written on this topic, primarily in public relations publications. Now, with the growing proliferation of blogs, journalists are taking their turn at the "podium" to expound on the subject.

In a recent blog posting, Jeremy Zawodny suggests journalists place a blanket ban on public relations from tech firms. Zawodny went on to equate the pitches he received with spam, and suggested that the best way for journalists to fight back was to filter their in-boxes so they would not receive correspondence from PR firms.

As a former CNN Financial News staffer, I know all too well what it's like to work at a major outlet, where you're flooded with e-mails, phone calls and all kinds of useless information. However, as with many things, I believe it's important not to paint with a brush that's too broad. There are many PR pros who go to the trouble to carefully research what reporters write about and to offer them genuine, new developments in those industries. I found that information very useful when I was at news outlets, and the response I get from reporters at major publications indicates they do as well.

I believe rather than perpetuating a divided camp discussion, the better approach would be for the two sides to work together with the mutual goal of improving the information they deliver. That will benefit the clients of PR firms, as well as the readers, listeners and viewers of the media outlets with whom they communicate.

Web Site Facelift

As some of you have undoubtedly noticed, the original version of Astoria Communications Web site did not exactly have that professionally-designed and polished look. Well, frankly, that's because the first version was not professionally designed, but rather was put together by yours truly.

To "celebrate" the first anniversary of launching my practice, I began planning for a Web site relaunch in early summer. I'm now happy to announce that the new site went live on Friday, Sept. 2 and should be bug free at this point. (If anyone does notice anything amiss, please do drop me a line.)

This blog is integrated into the Web site through a direct link, and I plan to do more with this forum in the coming months. In the meantime, I welcome anyone's suggestions on ways to make this blog a unique place among the PR community. We're fortunate to have many great PR representatives in the blogosphere right now, and I certainly don't intend to "compete" with them in any way, but rather to supplement what they're doing.

So please do feel free to write in and look for frequent updates to this space.

Thanks,

Cyrus

Proving the Value of PR

All too often, comparisons are made between various marketing methods, including advertising and public relations and the various media available to communicate those messages.

One of the things PR practitioners have to confront most often is a belief that a public relations program doesn't result in a quantifiable return on investment for companies looking to build a new brand or expand an existing brand's awareness.

A new article by Al Reis on the Web site of Advertising Age addresses this issue and has many good points that PR pros may want to use in dealing with this issue as part of the new business process or with existing clients.

The article may be found here:
http://adage.com/news.cms?newsId=44958

Story Discusses Influence of Blogs

Edelman Public Relations recently issued a report chronicling the importance of blogs. Titled "Trust MEdia.... How Real People Are Finally Being Heard," the aim is to help companies better understand how they can benefit from blogs and engage those who write them.

Not surprisingly, Edelman PR, which has been one of the first large agencies to get out in front of the trend and whose CEO was among the first in the industry to establish his own blog, believes blogs will become increasingly important through their ability to allow most anyone to rapidly publish and receive feedback on all types of information.

The report may be found here:
http://www.edelman.com/insights

Attitudes Toward Journalists

Time and again over the years, I've been amazed at the attitudes public relations practitioners have exhibited to journalists -- both to their colleagues and to clients. If an interview didn't result in a story, it's because the reporter didn't understand the idea. If an interview got canceled at the last minute, the reporter who took that action was said to be disrepectful of a client's time.

While PR, like any industry, certainly has its frustrations, I firmly believe the prevailing attitude that PR practitioners have about journalists is one of the reasons that the industry sometimes has to overcome so many negative perceptions. Those views are also incredibly short-sighted. I can't tell you how many times I've had a reporter who respected the way I dealt with him to come back to me for a source following an initial contact that didn't result in a story or interview.

It's actually quite simple: reporters and editors, like many others, know a talented, prepared and professional individual when they see one. While I put my clients' interests first and foremost, I believe my experience having served as a journalist for CNN and other high-level outlets, gives me the ability to deliver a unique perspective to clients on media relations. I encourage my clients to view media relations as more of a marathon than a sprint, and I believe other practitioners would be well-advised to do the same. The profession will be better off for it.

New York Times Takes PR to Task

I would imagine that most PR practitioners will probably find themselves involved in a discussion regarding Sunday's New York Times article, which levels a rather scathing indictment of the public relations industry.

While it's always worrisome to see articles that can potentially paint a whole industry with a broad brush, there's also a lot practitioners can do to clear the confusion that this story will most likely create. It's true there are aspects of PR that are similar to those described in the story, undertaken by Ketchum and the agency led by Armstrong Williams.

However, the valued work that the vast majority of PR practitioners do is nothing that should be apologized for. We must work diligently to dispel the notion that PR involves twisting the truth or creating messages out of "half-truths." Most people who engage the services of a PR firm find that they greatly help streamline the process of sending out newsworthy messages to the right people. They do this by condensing information into a clear, concise format that shows journalists and others they value and respect their time. There are many respected journalists who will tell you good PR practitioners help serve as another resource for them by passing along information they may not yet had a chance to discover.

Also, perhaps most importantly, this story should help dispel the notion that small independents have no chance of competing in this industry. If anything, it shows honest, hard work is what really counts.

A Service Worth Paying For

More and more these days, PR practitioners are encountering individuals who are asking them about working on a pay-per-placement basis. And, contrary to popular notions, it's not only very small clients, but even law firms that are investigating the possibility.

From a practical perspective, I can certainly see how a PR practitioner might entertain this notion. After all, if you're attracted by the account and have the time, why not take the chance? The biggest danger I see, however, is the long-term implications this will have on our industry. Like any industry, PR has good and bad practitioners. But one could make that argument about most any professional service around. And I have yet to see someone asking an accountant or tax preparer to work on a commission basis, getting only a percentage of the refund; you won't see an attorney other than a personal injury practitioner willing to work for free in a civil action, etc.

Obviously, anyone encountering this situation in either an informal lunch or gathering or a more advanced business discussion must tread the issue with care. But I urge anyone in this field who can to fight against this trend. In a professional service field, a person is compensated for their knowledge and expertise. This is no different in public relations and practitioners should demand equal treatment.