|
PR Quarterly, an excellent journal of independent
PR thought, has put out its 50th anniversary edition. But
the future looks grim because circulation is only 860 and
the anniversary edition had only one ad. Five other PR publications
have disappeared.
What is causing this breakdown of the PR trade press at a
time of prosperity for much of PR?
We look to the five advertising conglomerates that have purchased
21 of what were (as of 2001) the 25 largest PR firms and hundreds
of other PR firms.
PR Quarterly's
50th anniversary issue |
The holding companies (WPP, Omnicom, Interpublic, Publicis,
Havas), have strict policies of secrecy and non-disclosure.
They are led for the most part by financiers rather than advertising
executives.
PR units of the conglomerates have not been allowed to disclose
fee income or employee totals for the past four years, a vast
withdrawal of industry statistics that had been reported for
most of the previous 30 years.
A blanket of silence for the most part seems to have descended
on these firms. New accounts are not announced and the annual
list of accounts that they used to reveal has instead become
a small sampling of their accounts. In several instances,
no account lists at all are provided.
Few public speeches or appearances are made by the executives
of these firms.
Conglomerate
Heads Avoid Press
The employees of PR firms owned by the conglomerates are
well aware of the coolness of their conglomerate owners to
the press.
The best example of this is John Wren of Omnicom, who has
given three interviews in the past four years.
He and the OMC board have taken the annual meeting out of
New York four years in a row, the latest choice being San
Francisco, which is about as far as you can get from New York
and still be in the U.S. short of Hawaii or Alaska.
Wren's antipathy to the press is well known.
He blasted a Wall Street Journal article June 13, 2002, that
charged OMC had made a false financial report by failing to
deduct $89.5 million in earnings from the first half of 2001.
OMC improperly "off loaded" various dot-com investments,
said the WSJ, which was backed up in its claim by accounting
professors.
Wren claimed the WSJ was "inaccurate" but when
challenged to show any inaccuracies, did not respond.
The WSJ criticism was reiterated Feb. 9, 2006.
Not far behind in coolness to the press are the CEO's of
WPP, Interpublic, Publicis and Havas, the latter two being
based in Paris.
There is no one in the U.S. who is available to speak for
the French companies. None of the five provide a spokesperson
who can discuss their complicated financial reports.
What PR employee of these conglomerates would dare put various
PR publications on their expense accounts? Even if they did,
financial overseers from the parents would block any such
purchases.
Under this repressive atmosphere, the 50-year-old PR Reporter,
which wrote about research topics, ceased to exist two years
ago.
Also disappearing were two PR publications each of Ragan
Communications and Paul Holmes.
PRQ Published
Academics
PRQ, whose subscription price was $65 a year and which had
a circulation of 3,000+, is owned by Elaine Newman, widow
of founder Howard Hudson, who died in 2005.
The late
Howard Hudson |
He was a well known PR and publishing figure, having founded
Hudson's Washington News Media Contacts, the Newsletter
on Newsletters, and the New York Newsletter Assn., which
helped spawn the National Newsletter Assn.
He was president of PRSA/National Capital early in his career.
PRQ had only one ad in its anniversary edition, a $500 ad
by PR Newswire. Ad directors of PRQ told us they knocked on
the doors of the big PR firms for years without success.
Articles in the current PRQ include an analysis of the Sago
mine disaster in West Virginia by Edward Lordan, Ph.D., West
Chester University, and E.W. Brody, journalism professor,
University of Memphis.
PRSA thought so highly of PRQ's articles that it sold at
least 20,000 copies of them in the early 1990s without permission.
Hudson and other authors tried to collect after figuring PRSA
netted about $200,000 from its years of such copying. But
PRSA refused any payment, claiming it was a "library"
and was only collecting "loan fees" rather than
selling information packets.
Since so many big firms have, in effect, turned their backs
on the PR trade press, the slack should be taken up by other
elements of the PR industry including the independent PR firms,
PR service firms, and corporate PR departments.
A healthy and varied trade press is important to any industry.
It performs an educational role for those in the industry
and brings understanding to those who might join the industry.
It serves potential PR clients who are in search of PR counsel.
|
