Contact
O'Dwyer's: 271 Madison Ave.,
#600, New York, NY 10016; Tel: 212/679-2471; Fax: 212/683-2750 |
| |
|
|
|
June 2, 2009
|
CURRENT ISSUE OF PRQ IS LAST |
|
Friends of Public Relations Quarterly editor Elaine Newman say she has told them that Volume 52, No. 4, is the last issue she will mail.
The phone at the publication's office in Rhinebeck, N.Y., is "disconnected or no longer in service."
Newman is the widow of PRQ founder Howard Hudson, who died in 2005.
Elaine Newman |
The final 48-page issue had two ads, a full page for John Budd's "Too Many Geese; Too Few Swans," and a quarter-page ad for the Copyright Clearance Center.
For many years, the only steady advertiser was North American Precis Syndicate, headed for many years by Ron Levy. He has an 11-page article in the current issue under the general heading of "Recession PR Opportunities."
An article by Washington, D.C., counselor Wes Pedersen tells of his experiences as a reporter covering the building of the Berlin Wall and as an editor for the Central Intelligence Agency, writing via a nom de plume.
Levy said that while PRQ provided many thoughtful articles by professors, today's audience is looking for "articles more related to money — who's getting it and how."
PR professors don't have many publications in which they present ideas, noted Levy.
Profession Neglected it — Pedersen
Pedersen, writing an "Obit for a Friend," said: "PRQ died this week, victim of gross neglect by the profession it befriended and supported for decades." (see sidebar)
Obit for a Friend
By Wes Pedersen
Principle, Wes Pedersen Communications and Public Relations
The Public Relations Quarterly died this week, victim of gross neglect by the profession it befriended and supported for decades.
The fat cats of PR couldn’t bother with PRQ. It was never flashy enough, never glossy enough, never trashy enough for them. They preferred to put their money on a sure winner like PR Week. PRW was Big Time. Big Time enough to last as a weekly for 10 years. Then, with the recession and changing demographics, PRW, despite a first-rate editor, folded into a print monthly and an Internet daily of sorts.
On the calendar, the modest but learned PRQ outlasted the posh print PR Week. Even with the support of the Public Relations Society, PR Week couldn’t hack it.
In the end, it was people like Ron Levy, with his ads for NAPS, that gave PRQ what extended life it had. The final issue had only an ad by Turtle Publishing for John Budd’s eloquent new book, “Too Many Geese, Too Many Swans.”
I plead guilty to having been a supporter via frequent guest texts, but not with the necessary ads. The Public Affairs Council, my employer for years, had a policy: no ads, no ads, no ads. I opened my own shop on a decidedly non-fat-cat basis. Mea culpa.
My professional condolences go to Elaine Newman, the widow of PRQ’s founder, Howard Penn Hudson, and editor and publisher since his death in 2004.
My professional condolences go the PR pros like Ron Levy, Al Croft, John Budd and Andy Marken who kept articles flowing into PRQ, and to the educators and PR newcomers who always found PRQ a valuable place to voice their opinions, their criticisms and innovations.
PR professionals think of themselves as media savvy. Recent history proves them wrong. |
He said major firms "put their money on a sure winner like PR Week" although PRW, "despite a first-rate editor," recently became a monthly while retaining its daily internet coverage.
PR Reporter, a weekly published since 1958, was purchased by Ragan Communications in 2002, changed to a monthly in 2004 and was folded later that year. The Ragan Report, previously a weekly newsletter, went online only last year. Reputation Management, monthly magazine published by Paul Holmes, closed in 2000 after five years of publication.
A USPS statement in the latest issue of PRQ said average paid and/or requested circulation in the 12 months to October 2008 was 1,857.
Hudson, a descendent of Henry Hudson, William Penn and Ralph Waldo Emerson, founded PRQ in 1955 and Hudson's Washington News Media Contacts Directory in 1968.
He was also a founder of the New York Newsletter Assn., which evolved into Specialized Information Publishers Assn.
Was Outlet for Academics
PRQ was a popular outlet for articles by professors, the current issue having five such articles and several others by college students and a high school teacher.
Prof. Nancy Somerick of the University of Akron wrote about being a PR teacher; Prof. Edd Applegate of Middle Tennessee State University wrote about "news balance" and "objectivity" in news coverage, and Prof. Sean McCleneghan of New Mexico State University wrote about the different skills of PR counselors and PR executives.
PR professors as of 2007 found a new outlet for their articles in the online "PR Journal" of the PR Society hosted by PR Prof. Don Wright of Boston University. LINK
Current PRJ articles discuss corporate intranets, corporate social responsibility programs, and media in Ukraine.
PRS Sold Many PRQ Articles
PRQ turned out to be the second most copied publication when the PR Society's business of selling authors' works without their permission was discovered in 1994.
The O'Dwyer Co., which purchased 11 "information packets" of the Society in late 1994, found they contained 52 articles from the O'Dwyer Newsletter and magazine and 19 articles from PRQ.
About 100 copied O'Dwyer pages were found in the packets and about 50 pages of PRQ articles.
Hudson, a longtime PRS member, condemned the practice and joined 11 other copied authors in hiring a law firm to seek payment from the Society.
PRS took a firm stand that it owed the authors nothing because it was merely acting as a library and charging a "loan fee" rather than selling the authors' works (nine complete chapters of PR books were found in the 11 packets). PRS said it was entitled to make one copy of an article and loan it.
The final 48-page issue of PR Quarterly carried only two ads. |
However, 24-hour delivery of packets was promised by the Society and buyers could keep them for three weeks. PRS financial reports showed volume was about 3,800 packets yearly and profits were about $60,000 yearly.
The authors, warned of the costs of pursing PRS legally, abandoned their legal claims. However, some continue to press for a settlement, noting that PRS' claims of being the ethical leader of the PR industry are contradicted by its refusal to recompense the authors.
PRQ Was Accused of Copyright Violation
PRQ itself was accused of copyright violation in 2007 when Prof. Linda Morton of the University of Oklahoma found that 38 of her PRQ articles were for sale via Amazon at $5.95 each.
The Amazon website said the articles were "available for download now" and that an article "ships from and (is) sold by Amazon.com." Other services also offered PRQ articles and one offered a package of 1,017 articles for $800.
Morton, author of "Strategic Publications: Designing for Target Audiences," wrote a column on "Segmenting Publics" for PRQ.
She wrote to Newman and was told in an e-mail that PRQ has a company that handles sale of rights to articles but that PRQ itself was not "selling your articles on online on Amazon or other sites."
Morton demanded that PRQ cease providing her articles to anyone. |
|
return to main page
of odwyerpr.com >> |
|
|
| Responses: |
|
[email protected] (6/03):
Jack -- In 2005 public relations lost one of its most aggressive promoters for professionalism in the field.
This past week the field lost one of its most valued tools that worked diligently to provide a platform for helping educators -- and those who respected their chosen field -- provide next generation communicators a sound and solid understanding of how to prepare for and work successfully in the field.
Ms Newman did an excellent job in carrying on the tradition Howard had established.
Communications across the board and around the globe is going through significant changes.
Many who seem to revel in the difficulties the newspaper and print industry are facing and feel that well trained journalists are obsolete don't seem to understand that "citizen journalists" can also be "citizen publicists."
When that happens what need is there for public relations practitioners who can't think strategically and act tactically? We're certain some people are delighted to see PRQ deliver its final issue saying that is no longer relevant.
The waves of change affect all boats and good strategic thinking, good professional writing and the constant demand that people in the industry deliver value simply do not go out of style.
Howard Hudson promoted and gave a platform for professionalism for many, many years. His wife, Elaine, carried on that tradition. It's difficult to see a second trusted friend end ... but that is the way of life ... Andy.
Wes Pedersen (6/03):
Jack, I do appreciate the coverage you have given to the Public Relations Quarterly. In referring to me, however, you have me as an editor and writer for the CIA. I was never with the CIA; my federal agencies were the Department of State and the U.S. Information Agency, both of which gave me freedom to make predictions that proved correct despite the CIA's inistence that I was wrong.
Elaine Newman granted me the space to tell, for the first time,details of my encounters with both the CIA and the men of the other side during the Cold War.
Donald Wright, professor of PR, Boston University College of Communication, and editor of the PR Journal of the PR Society (6/04):
Although some educators did publish in PRQ (even I did years ago) the fact PRQ is not a refereed, peer-reviewed scholarly publication negated most, if not all, of the credit any decent university would give a faculty member who published there.
PRSA's Public Relations Journal on the other hand is peer-reviewed as are the other two major US-based scholarly outlets for academic research in our field -- Public Relations Review and the Journal of Public Relations Research (both traditional print publications that are peer-reviewed).
There also are several overseas-based public relations scholarly journals. US PR academics also publish some public relations scholarly articles in journalism, communication, social science and business publications.
I do know that the good people at PRQ had been trying to interest people and universities in possibly taking over the publication, but that didn't work. I hope you are doing well.
Ron Levy (6/04):
Wright is wrong! Wright sniffs that PRQ is not a refereed, peer-reviewed scholarly publication as PR Journal claims to be, but neither are O'Dwyer's or PR Week peer-reviewed.
Is Wright claiming to us that his publication is better or more trustworthy than ODwyer's, which was called "the Bible of PR" by the New York Times? Was Wright's publication, while he has been editor, ever been called ANYTHING by The New York Times? How about the News or the Post? The Observer or at least some of the weeklies in Queens? Anyone at all?
If PR Quarterly is as low in prestige at Wright claims, how come he doesn't deny writing for PRQ, but in fact admits it while saying it was "years ago"? Did Wright take time away from teaching to write for PRQ? Did he take time away from higher prestige publications that were clamoring for his writing?
In fairness to ODwyer's, PR Week and other publications not peer-reviewed, WHO PICKS the peers who review for Wright's magazaine? Does Wright pick them? Does Wright think they know more about PR than Jack O'Dwyer, Kevin McCauley, the rest of the gifted O'Dwyer staff and the editors of PR Week?
Readers have paid MONEY to subscribe to PR Quarterly, O'Dwyer's, PR Week and other PR publications. Do readers pay money to receive Wright's publication? Or is his PR Journal a throw-in people get free for joining PRSA?
PRQ was edited by a top PR professional with many years of successful PR experience including heading up the entire Washington office of Ruder Finn, being President of PRSA's Washington chapter, counseling Alis-Chalmers on corporate, marketing and Washington PR, and serving as a top military spokesman.
How about YOU, Donald Wright? Have you ever headed a major PR firm's office? Or been President of a PRSA chapter or anything else? Or counseled a major corporation? Or do you just talk about PR and write about it and criticize others but without doing it?
Donald I don't see your name in O'Dwyer's Directory of PR executives which has thousands of listings -- nor in other directories I have of PR movers and shakers. Have the directory publishers failed to realize that you are a top PR executive? Or at least a mid-level PR person? Or even entry-level but promising?
You say that PRQ not being peer-reviewed "negated most, if not all, of the credit any decent university would give a faculty member." But stand up and tell us this:
1. Do you think "any decent university" fails to look at the quality of a writer's ideas and writing, not just at whether a publication is peer reviewed? And perhaps wih a person at your level of PR knowldge nd experience picking the peer-reviewers?
2. Can you understand that some PR writers including Harold Burson, Jack O'Dwyer, and in fact top executives from nearly all top-20 PR firms-all of whom hve written articles as I have for PRQ--may write for the benefit of the readers and PR, not for credit from a university or ayone else?
3. Do you yourself believe that your publication is as good for readers as O'Dwyer's, PR Week and PRQ?
Donald, I'm calling you out and asking you to put up--tell how you are better than other PR editors--or else apologize, or else mumble "no comment" or something under your breath and sneak off without answering.
Wes Pedersen (6/04):
Go get him, Ron! One of the universities that failed to respond positively to Elaine Hudson's suggestion that they provide some sort of assistance to PRQ missed a great bet. Wright and his snobbish colleagues could have provided organizational support or funding, and ecouraged their academic colleagues to contribute articles.
But the purpose of PRQ was, from the start, to be a forum for working, hands-on professionals who really knew how the business works. Again, Ron, I and other PRQ readers appreciate the financial support you gave PRQ over the years.
Donald Wright, Ph.D. editor, Public Relations Journal & professor of Public Relations, Boston University College of Communications (6/05):
Ron Levy has written several criticisms on your web pages as a follow-up to comments I offered to you about Public Relations Quarterly.
I want Mr. Levy to know that I was a supporter of PRQ, and even tried to help the Hudson family and find it a new home. However, PRQ was not viewed by the academic community as a refereed (aka, "peer reviewed") scholarly publication.
In order to attain that status all published articles must be read and critiqued by an editorial review board in a double-blind review process. This means at least two reviewers must consider the article worthy of publication and neither reviewer can know the author's identity. This review process has been part of higher education for centuries and continues to exist throughout the arts, sciences and professional schools of most colleges and universities.
Although the editorial review boards of most scholarly publications are comprised solely of academic scholars, PRSA's Public Relations Journal (http://www.prsa.org/prjournal) welcomes both academics and practitioners to its editorial review board.
We currently are in the process of reviewing the editorial board membership for the Journal and Mr. Levy, or any other practitioners or scholars interested in applying, should contact me at [email protected]. Current members of this board are listed at http://www.prsa.org/prjournal/EditorialBoard.html.
I want Mr. Levy to know that in addition to being a full-professor at one of the nation's major research universities, I have been a PRSA section head, have served a number of times as a PRSA assembly delegate, have served as a consultant with more than a dozen major corporations, have served many years on the boards of trustees of both the Arthur W. Page Society and the Institute for Public Relations, am a past chair of the Institute's Commission on Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation and a past president of the International Public Relations Association.
Ron Levy (6/05):
Look at what Wright is proud of and judge whether instead of arrogance (he gives an address where I can apply to him for a position) he should have the humility to either try improving PR Journal and what he's teaching or else resign and let someone else try.
Wright says (these are his words) "at least two reviewers must consider an article worthy of publication and neither reviewer can know the author's identity." But would any of us, even Wright, want a medical opinion--or advice from a lawyer, PR executive, engineer or any other expert--without knowing the author's identity? Does it make any sense to judge an article on winning in Washington without knowing whether it was written by one of the PR geniuses at Burson-Marsteller, APCO, Levick, Fleishman Hillard or Hill and Knowlton--or by a PhD candidate who may never have even seen Washington, met a legislator, lunched with a Washington journalist, pitched an account, or stayed up until 3 a.m. with a PR team planning how to handle a PR crisis?
How about Health PR--should a reviewer know who wrote it in order to judge it? How about Corporate PR. . .Technology. . .New Product Introduction Worldwide. . .and Special Event Management--does Wright not feel that WHO authored an article in these fields should be considered in judging the piece? Wright talks of a "double bind" test which one might want in judging whether a new drug is better than the old one. But in PR, isn't full disclosure better than double blind?
Even if Wright doesn't think ignorance is bliss, is ignorance properly held up--to a class or to readers of this newsletter--as admirable by a professor of PR? Donald Wright, are you going to answer--or duck--the questions raised above?
1. Do you claim your publication, peer-reviewed by double bind reviewers, is better or more trustworthy than publications of the savvy, feisty, question-asking editors--respected worldwide--of O'Dwyer's, PR Week and PRQ?
2. If PRQ is as low in prestige as you idicate, how come you yourself wrote for PRQ?
3. You say that no peer-review at PRQ "negated most, if not all, of the credit any decent university would give a faculty member who published there." Does Boston University'a PR faculty under you consider the QUALITY OF INSIGHTS in an article or only where it was published?
4. Since we know that readers have paid MONEY to receive O'Dwyer's, PR Week and PRQ, will you reveal whether readers pay for your present publcation or for any other publication you have edited other than the weekly newspaper of many years ago?
5. PRQ's editor Howard Penn Hudson headed up the Washington office of Ruder Finn so have YOU headed an office of any major PR firm? How about a midsize or tiny PR firm? Or do you mainly talk about PR and criticize others as you have criticized PRQ--but without having DONE much PR that you talk about? Donald should you apologize candidly?
Each of the four professors on the PR faculty under you--each one appears to have more experience than you at DOING PR rather than just talking about it and passing out articles for double-bind reviews.
Apologize to the readers for failing to admit that top editors on O'Dywer's, PR Week and PRQ are in no way at all inferior to you.
Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (6/05):
I've just finished reading the colloquy between Messrs Wright and Levy and come away with a lousy taste in my mouth from Professor Wright's rather academic arrogance.
Heavens knows, Ron and I are frequently on different sides of many things, and he does often use a lot of rhetoric for simple things, but his response to the professor is on target.
For Professor Wright's edification, numerous of us who contribute here can recite, except for professorial positions, long lists of quite reputable affiliations, offices held and all the rest. Those are quite nice for resumes and professional politics but often say little about the person.
Frankly, I have often bridled at the sound of "peer reviewed" literature and all that fancy asserted research in public relations. I don't know these "peers" and would be happy to challenge them with stuff I've done or that Wes and many others here have done and continue to do and never heard from these "peers" who just may be in academe.
You could have done well merely to avoid the debate with Mr Levy and recognized the genuine importance of not only PRQ but the Hudsons to the whole PR business and scads of those young aspirants over the years.
Instead, you chose to regale the rest of us, not just Ron, with all those offices you held that many of us have had no time for, did no aspire to and did not need for the purposes of "publish or perish" in academe.
I want my final word here to be another accolade of respect and appreciation for two people who gave a lot of their lives so you and I and many others could be involved in this business.
Wes Pedersen (6/05):
Mr. Wright, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole as you try to explain the importance of peer review. Let me explain this: advance peer review is never needed for work produced by in-the-trenches professionals.
I have edited, written or contributed to some 30 books on PR and public affairs and I have done so without peer review.
I have also edited contributions by PR academics, and I must tell you that their work suffers greatly in comparison with that of working practitioners. One of the problems with PR is its teaching: charts, detailed footnotes, and boring writing.
Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (6/04):
As Wes and others point out, Howard Hudson gave a platform for public relations professonalism. He did more than that, however, but, because he was much less "noisier" and self-aggrandizing, his quiet generosity in helping newcomers was too often overlooked. The same is to be said of his wife. For all those mumbling and grumbling about the Ledbetters, Lees and Bernays, it is fitting to say and see some nice words about the Hudsons for whom so little is written otherwise. |
| |