PR Society, by lecturing the Presidential campaigns on truth and honesty, has again stepped onto the national scene and emerged with mud on its face. The whole industry suffers.
The previous debacle occurred in June when Julin castigated CBS broadcaster Andrew Cohen’s for his blast at the credibility of PR.
Jeff Julin |
Julin ignored the fact that “PR specialist” ranked 43rd on a list of 45 credible sources of information in the $150K study in 1999 by PRS and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Cohen took back his comparison of PR people with burglars but not much else. He noted that journalism is also under criticism (as are lawyers, accountants, bankers, etc.).
Instead of talking to Cohen, Julin got on his high horse and urged PRS members to attack Cohen.
In this latest debacle, Julin has had the effrontery to “challenge” the Obama and McCain campaigns to sign a pledge to follow the PRS Code.
PRS, which is off in its own corner of the universe, forgets that the Ten Commandments, which are thousands of years old, covers the subject of lying quite adequately.
The PRS demand has touched off ridicule not only via postings from irate readers on odwyerpr.com but on other websites and blogs.
Jon Greer’s blogs.bnet.com captured the mood best with the headline: “PRS Pulls Publicity Stunt to Promote PR Ethics.”
The best that PRS could expect out of this gambit is replies that the campaigns already have such standards, notes Greer, who said this was an “obvious publicity stunt…well, it just seems tacky and lame.”
It definitely is a publicity stunt. A Julin e-mail to members 9/11 asks the 32,000 regular and student members to join in the PRS campaign for truth so that PRS will have “large enough numbers to have the clout of a de facto national petition, the credibility for a solid story, and even recognition as a national movement.”
PRS’s attempt to co-op the Ninth Commandment will give PRS leaders and members national recognition as buffoons.
A cartoon was posted (link) on the Greer site showing Julin spouting off about the PRS code and three PR people stuffing releases down the throat of a journalist.
PRS’s problem is that it’s the pot calling kettle black. PRS is the Land of the Giant Whoppers including not only issuing misleading financials by booking a year’s advance dues as immediate cash, but by withholding all sorts of information from members.
The PRS demand has touched off ridicule on websites and blogs.
|
Not telling someone something important is lying. PRS is withholding the transcripts of the last three Assemblies, refusing to publicize the PR professors’ arguments for the printed members’ directory, and blocking any discussion of governance reforms such as ending proxy voting, and moving the charter to Delaware.
When Central Michigan in 2006 proposed governance reform modeled after the ABA and AMA, and providing extensive research for this reform, not a word appeared on the PRS web or in Tactics or Strategist. PRS’s strong suit is concealing things, not public debate.
It could be in a real mess if a national medium starts covering PRS’s own policies and practices.
What’s needed in the Presidential campaigns is a PR/press/academic panel that could perform an umpire’s role and provide reasoning for its views.
Communications failures at the Society were evident in the “first ever” teleconference for APRs Sept. 10.
The group of about ten APRs who showed up (out of more than 100 invited), mostly had nothing to talk about except how great they feel as APRS and how much better they are than non-APRs (“five levels” better, said one participant).
It’s obvious the APRs are a privileged subgroup in PRS (and one that has a 35-year stranglehold on its high offices).
James Lukaszewski |
Participant James Lukaszewski said that he has special meetings for APRs when he visits chapters and another participant said APRs find it “much easier” to get their articles published in Tactics and especially in Strategist.
Lukaszewski, the most frequent speaker (paid) at PRS seminars and webinars and who believes that truth is “15% facts and 85% perception,” says APR is a “credential in an industry where credentials matter.”
He’s onto something there. There’s a definite push to get PR people to pay thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars to earn advanced degrees and certificates.
Whether they will help them get or keep jobs remains to be seen.
What it has done is increase the “pomposity” index in PR in recent years. The previous chatty, amusing, self-deprecating PR pro has largely been replaced by the formal, degree and certificate-heavy pro who takes him or herself very seriously.
Lots of “PR” these days is promotion and marketing and has little to do with public discourse. “PR” can only be practiced as much as management allows it.
The degrees that really matter, as a survey of PRS members by Bob Frause has found, are an MBA or a master’s in communication or PR. It found that 80% of 113 respondents feel any of these is “somewhat” or “extremely helpful” in getting a job, winning clients or getting a promotion.
About half the respondents are interested in “certification” in media relations, digital/social media, and crisis management and not much else. About 60% would sell certification to non-members and two-thirds favor offering certification to non-APRs.
Douglas Fenichel |
Tri-State chair Douglas Fenichel of K. Hovnanian Homes, Edison, N.J., who led the APR-only session, might have had something to talk about if Frause had given him the results of the certification survey.
This will be yet another “credential” that PRS can offer members in addition to APR and Fellow. It has thousands of other resume-enhancers including local, district, national, and section offices; membership on national committees including Silver Anvil; assembly delegate, and the thousands of awards given out by national and chapters. Silver Anvils were at one time given out to fewer than 20 recipients but hundreds now receive awards of various types at the Anvil dinner.
The perceived need for such credentials, as well as networking opportunities, are what fuels PRS member renewals.
Fenichel should also have discussed the dismal results of the first five years of the new multiple-choice APR test.
There is no writing on this test which is like testing lifeguards without making them go into the water.
Only 550 PRS members have become APR in five years (70% pass rate). Less than 2% of PRS eligibles take the test each year. That certainly deserved discussion as well as the 35-year grip on national offices by the APRs and whether it’s about time to ditch this.
APR, based on the way APRs have led the Society, stands for ferocious politics, undemocratic practices, selfishness, exaggerated sense of self-worth, inability to deal with the press or take part in public dialogue, and subjugation by the PRS staff,
We’re hopeful that the APRs on the call (Fenichel, Lukaszeweki, Joan Capelin, Mary Goepfert, Kathy Lewton, Grace Zimmerman, Jennifer Tornetta, Anita Saunders, Laura Lindsay, and Paul Brennan), will get together again and discuss the five-year APR results; the Frause study; “decoupling”APR from national offices; putting the PR professors’ arguments for a printed directory on national and chapter websites; giving members Assembly transcripts, etc. This would make them real “leaders.”
Fenichel thinks we did something “wrong” by listening to the teleconference but we told him what is really wrong is PRS selling tens of thousands of our articles without our permission; the grip APRs have on national offices; withholding Assembly transcripts; the theft of a day’s worth of notes at the 2003 Assembly when we turned our back on our open conference bag; Julin’s failure to appear before the big chapters (or any chapters as far as we can tell), etc.
We would be glad to debate the ethics of our listening to this meeting of APRs as long as they will debate our concerns about the ethics of PRS policies and practices.