I agree to a certain extent with your points, but I think our reputation problem is quite basic; our issues are linked to the unethical behavior of some PR practitioners. It's misleading journalists, it's the billing clients for work that was not completed and it's paying for coverage.
Until something is done and consequences are outlined for professionals who choose this type of behavior will there be a change in the reputation of public relations.
Good points, John.
As for Jon's points: Maybe I don't get something about the overbilling issue. I was on the corporate side for most of my career, and whenever I got a bill from my agency -- and over the years that included Burson, Fleishman and smaller agencies as well -- I would actually REVIEW it. I knew how long it took to make a media call. I knew how long it should take to draft a press release. If I thought the billing was off, I'd talk with the agency.
Why is this so difficult? If you have a competent person on the client side -- which every company should have before hiring an agency -- where's the problem?
> We no longer have to promise
> the front page of the NY
> Times in order to be
> effective.
I once worked with someone who treated the NY Times (and a specific reporter) like the great white whale to his Ahab. We got that exclusive in the Times, sure, but ended up irritating about a half-dozen other reporters. The response I got: "Who cares? It's the Times." I damn near hit the ceiling.
If the discussion with a client has descended into a dogged focus on a particular publication or a set thereof, you've already lost. I've seen it blind companies to opportunities *and* threats. I've described it frequently as "Wall Street Journal Syndrome" but it could easily go by the name of any number "top tier" publications.
Scott is absolutely right. Buyer beware. We don't need laws to protect consumers from fraud. If you are dumb enough to be hoodwinked by a PR person, you apparently deserve it.
"What's the problem?" That kind of thinking is the problem.
- Amanda
Scott:
In this instance, I'm talking about PR firms getting big monthly retainers for media relations work.
Inevitably, the client does what you suggest -- scours the bill, finds there's a disconnect and fires the firm.
But that doesn't do much for the profession's reputation, does it?
It seems that the two failings of some public relations programs that you outline here are deception, in the form of astroturfing and other less-than-ethical tactics (think pay to play, etc.), and overhype, or promising things that aren't acheivable or even desirable.
Beyond pure theft, like the Fleishman Hillard value billing fiasco in LA, both are indeed what cause the public relations profession so much angst.
I have to agree with Scott and Amanda, the buyers of public relations services, which are often PR themselves, must be vigilant.
In fact, a bad agency experience led me to call my business My PR Pro. In other words, no bait and switch.
Caveat emptor aside, we as PR professionals must also put some kind of controls in place to stop these practices, or at least call them out.
When I am interviewling with a potential new client, we talk about expectations and what the client hopes to acheive (in terms of business results vs. publicity, a term I abhor).
If I get the sense that the client is only interested in seeing their own quotes in a press release, I try to explain that goals, objectives and strategies will get them further.
If that doesn't fly, I often don't take the work.
Of course I am a "little guy" and don't have the weight of massive overhead or shareholders on my head.
The professional associations can do some things, and I really applaud the advocacy effort by PRSA, but it has no teeth. In fact, nothing will without regulation, and you just watch how far that flies.
I am a little like John, I have spoken out about this stuff, and will continue to do so, but how far will that move the industry?
All I can do is make a difference in my corner of the world.
The big agency model is broken, no question. Beyond repair? For small to mid sized companies, IMO absolutely. They cannot afford the overhead of a big agency. They end up paying for things that they don't need, or that could be done better in-house, and for less. That's why when I was on the client side, I used small boutique agencies, and also had an internal PR staffer.
We also operated with clear objectives and realistic expectations. Kept the PR retainer lean. And understood that we sent the right tool after the job. If it was the PR team, great. If direct mail or advertising was more appropriate for a given need, we did that and used the PR cycles to prep for something in the future. Issuing a content free release just because one was due. Nope.
Perhaps I have another reason to raise. Many of the people I work with have simply had too many bad experiences working with PR folk. They've hired an agency or a freelancer for a project and got poorly executed work: typos, not listening to their needs, not meeting deadlines, stereotypical language, wanting to put all their eggs in the media basket, etc. My co-workers don't like to think of me and our other PR person as PR people. We don't fit their perception that has been formed by all those bad experiences.
Another obvious factor is that PR screw-ups and ethical lapses make the news.
Christie:
No doubt there are a lot of unhappy clients out there who were promised one thing but didn't get it.
One problem in our profession is that most of the work is done by junior people, and the senior people move up into management roles where they have little day-to-day "work product" responsibilities.
There never seems to be any experienced folks in the middle.
I know from my days at Bates that the toughest jobs to fill were acct. supervisor ones.
I was out of the country for a couple of days and therefore out of the loop-- so I'm a bit late contributing to this conversation.
I did want to add something I found in my research on portrayals of PR in novels and film (for more info, see http://teachingpr.blogspot.com/2...5/pr-of-
pr.html ). What really bugs people about PR is that they think it's effective-- and, based on the stereotypes of PR that appear, it's simultaneously effective AND unethical (manipulative, exploitive, deceptive). In the sources I examined, the more awful the PR characters, the more likely they were to be effective.
Obviously, people don't like to be lied to, tricked, or taken advantage of, but that's what the stereotypes suggest will happen when PR's called in.
Karen ... thanks for your comment. Your study is interesting, indeed.
Especially considering that the vast majority of PR professionals work on rather mundane tasks communicating mundane details. Very few are like the publicists and spinmeisters shown in the media.
What are your thoughts about how this should impact the way we practice?
Commenting by HaloScan
