PR-Bridge

Public relations is both a profession and discipline. The field has a rich history coinciding with the birth of industrialization in the United States and the dramatic growth in mass communications technology. At its best, public relations historically served as a catalyst for openness and change. At its worst, public relations created a fog of disinformation shrouding the abusive nature of modern corporations.

Currently, the field’s history does not exist as a coherent whole, thus leaving it devoid of a sense of heritage that defines the profession’s culture. Unlike other disciplines/professions, there is little sense of pride or honor derived from understanding where the public relations came from or its overall importance in transforming American culture for more than a century.

Without a history, the field proceeds based on the fragmented experiences of individual practitioners, not the collective knowledge acquired over the past 150 years. There is a need for current professionals and students to learn from history’s successes and failures, which will help build a stronger profession overall. What is needed is an honest, well-researched history of public relations that will provide readers with insights and methods to deal with today’s (and tomorrow’s) challenges.

Robert E. Brown says, “Today, we need to ask not only when and how did public relations arise, but what really is it? Without a deeper sense of history and culture, we have no foundation on which to build better theories.” Brown sees current scholarly interpretations of PR history lacking “a passionate engagement with culture and aesthetics.” This neglect undercuts the field’s critical place in the nation’s history.¹

In most American universities, public relations majors receive virtually no information about the field from a historical perspective. Usually one lecture in a semester-long course is set aside to introduce students to the topic. In the typical “Introduction to Public Relations” course, this lecture is based on one of the poorly researched and written “The History of Public Relations” chapters in the leading textbooks. The authors attempt to boil the entire history of the field down to a whirlwind overview taking the reader from pre-Colonial history to the present in approximately 20 pages.²

In today’s textbooks, the historical chapter is not only poorly researched and written, but is ill-conceived from the start. Most authors spend a significant part of the chapter building PR’s history on propaganda/press agentry roots that should not be part of the field’s history. These writers mistakenly place publicity under the umbrella of public relations. Publicity, however, is a separate field. (The same holds true of political “Spin Doctors” who exist on ammunition of distortion and lies.)

A new history of public relations must shake publicity from PR’s coattails by redefining what public relations is and has been in modern American history. By looking at the broader societal aspects of PR, the project places the field within American business, cultural, and political history and gives it a legitimacy that it currently does not possess.

Another aim is to provide the field with a supplemental text for introductory and advanced public relations courses that more fully explains PR’s rich history. The history is not hagiographic, nor is it completely evil, but it is entirely necessary. A robust PR history will strengthen the drive toward establishing PR theory, because theory must be grounded in history.

What is required of a new history of public Relations? First, the study draws from multi-archival primary sources, interviews with leading practitioners, and the existing secondary research. The work builds strong ties to affiliated fields such as business history, economics, popular culture, political science, and labor history. The project applies intellectual rigor necessary for compelling interpretations of the subject and its wider importance. What is also a necessity is capturing the collective knowledge of industry leaders, like Fleishman-Hillard’s John Graham, Edelman’s Richard Edelman, and others of this echelon.

Because the history of public relations has been neglected, sensationalist interpretations gained a footing without real counterbalance. For example, the two most prominent recent trade books about public relations are harangues against the field, emphasizing the role of Edward L. Bernays as “the father of public relations.”³ Bernays is an easy target for these writers, particularly since many of the most famous incidents in his career were actually publicity stunts.

The only favorable book-length history of the field is little more than a narrative listing of episodes in the profession’s history (including publicity) from the seventeenth century to early twentieth century. The book is rarely used by public relations professors and made little impact on the broader historical field.⁴

In the end, a new history of public relations should be accessible and a learning tool for students, professionals, and academics. Without such a history, public relations will continue its current state – beating itself up over questions of whether or not CEOs allow professionals “at the table” and which academic theory best interprets the discipline.

ENDNOTES
1. Robert E. Brown, “Myth of Symmetry: Public Relations as Cultural Styles,” Public Relations Review 32 (2006) p. 206; 212.

2. For example, see Don Lattimore, Otis Baskin, et al. Public Relations: The Profession and the Practice. 4^th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004), pp. 20-40.

3. Larry Tye, The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations. (New York: Crown, 1998); Stuart Ewen, PR! A Social History of Spin. (New York: Basic, 1998).

4. Scott Cutlip, Public Relations History: From the 17^th to the 20^th Century. The Antecedents. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994).

One of my top students graduated with a 4.0 grade point average and a list of accomplishments longer than his arm. He moved away from Tampa and landed a job with one of the biggest PR firms in the world. By all accounts, he is a future superstar and leader of this industry.

I spoke to him recently, after he logged about six months on the job, and asked a simple question, “What did we not teach you or not teach you well enough?” The answer (right on the money): how to pitch.

My former student is an insightful guy. How to teach pitching is one of those topics that professors agonize about. Personally, I spend way too much time trying to think through the subject and come up with a way to impart that knowledge to students. In some ways, I think that the only good way to do so might be by having students make pretend pitch calls. However, that would be difficult, given the number of students and existing resources.

As a result, I try to explain pitching as relationship building and urge students to find internship/practicum experience where they will get pitching experience. The classroom aspect focuses on how to interact with journalists, how to manage the relationship, what a practitioner should and should not say, and other kinds of skeletal info about the process. Luckily, there are usually at least two to four students in the class (out of 18) who have pitched and by drawing their stories out of them, a good discussion ensues.

In the end, if I can get students to understand the relationship building aspect of pitching and help them see that this is one of two ways (the other writing) that they will immediately be judged/evaluated on the job, then I feel I have added value. However, that internship exerience is crucial and I let them know that right up front.

I think a broader discussion of how to teach pitching — from both the professional and academic points of view — would help us all understand a bit better. Please share your thoughts…

Many communications executives and managers believe that they can do their companies a favor by hiring bright, young employees who “get” the latest communications innovations, such as blogging, podcasting, camera work, and other advanced tools. I am sure that if I were in their shoes, I would feel the same way. Even though I am a proud Gen Xer (tech savvy by nature), I expect students to know more about technology than I do.

I learned over the last couple years, however, that this stereotype does not hold true. In most cases, students do not grasp these innovations or, more importantly, understand how they might be used in a campaign. Equating the extensive (over-?) use of cell phones with technological know-how is a mistake. Obviously, there are college students (and PR majors) who understand technology and its implications, so I am generalizing. But, I think practitioners would be surprised about the lack of knowledge in this area if they were in my shoes.

In my opinion, educators need to help prepare students in this area, but it is also imperative that they do what they can on their own to build strengths regarding technology. Any future communicator could begin a blog or build a Web site to show a potential employer that they have experience with the tools. Also, many organizations, particularly non-profits, could benefit from a student building such sites for them.

I have started a blogging community in both my “Writing for Public Relations” classes to provide a sense of what it is like to be part of an online community for my students. I have also encouraged one class to build social networking spaces for its service-learning client. In the wider tech realm, these are baby steps, but somewhat helpful if a student has little experience coming into the course. What I would prefer is a class students could take that focused solely on “high tech” communications, from building sites to learning about RSS, Twitter, and other new tools.

I would enjoy hearing other opinions/thoughts on this topic — both how you teach technology and what experiences professionals have had in hiring young employees. Did they have the necessary tools that you expected?

The most troubling aspect of teaching public relations is explaining (and getting students to understand) that some executives do not value the communications function. The whole notion is illogical, particularly if one asks individual business execs about the importance of communications. Every single one I have ever discussed communications with said that they did. And, there are many scholarly studies that come to similar conclusions.

In practice, however, the talk is not always backed up. Anyone who has ever worked in a communications department has multiple examples, from the downsizing that occurs among communicators to execs ignoring the advice of internal staff or their outside agencies. As a result, there is a lingering inferiority complex among professionals. In the scholarly community, this notion translates into ongoing battles about PR is and is not, definitions, neverending talk about the “strategic” nature of PR, etc., rather than ways to actually bridge the gap.

In my opinion, the disconnect is twofold. First, business majors do not (and in many cases, cannot) take public relations or advertising classes as undergrads. At USF, for example, we require our PR majors to take at least one class in marketing, management, and advertising. However, a business student cannot take our PR case studies class because of the prerequisites attached to it. So, business students don’t really get any real experience in communications. The counter might be that they take Marketing, but from what I understand, that is a far cry from a communications-centric course.

Second, my sense is that communicators spend too much time worrying about whether or not they sit at the CEO’s “table” and how others view them, instead of educating execs regarding the ROI value of the field. When professionals do talk about these issues, it is usually to one another, not in a forum that execs see. We’re trying to convince ourselves, rather than educate those around us.

For example, Mark Weiner of Ketchum writes a powerful piece in the September 2007 issue of O’Dwyers about how PR “outshines” advertising in ROI. His studies show that PR returns about $6 per dollar spent on average, much higher than mass marketing advertising at $1.20 per dollar.

Weiner rightly points to the disconnect between non-PR execs who fund communications departments and practitioners who don’t know the methods available to measure returns. As a result, Weiner explains, “Most PR people continue to report clip volume and ad value even though the executives to whom they’re reporting believe that they are irrelevant.” The challenge is that few if any execs are going to see this essay. We’re pretty good at talking among ourselves…at least within the academe/professional boundary…but not so much when it comes to the outside world.

So, another gap that needs filled. How do we get the next generation of Gordon Gekkos to think about the value of communications? And, can we really educate the execs that are paying our salaries?

An interesting article appeared yesterday on the Adweek Web site discussing “Wiki sleuthing.” Writer (and Assistant Professor at American University) Wendy Melillo examines ideas of branding and persuasion from the persective of “a practicing journalist who now teaches strategic communications to university students.” She focuses on how new technology, such as sites like WikiScanner,  enable users to see who has edited Wiki entries.

The findings are not good for communicators:

“Someone with an e-mail address at Wal-Mart changed ‘Wages at Wal-Mart are about 20 percent less than other retail stores’ to ‘The average wage at Wal-Mart is almost double the federal minimum wage.’ A person traced back to PepsiCo removed several paragraphs about the health effects of drinking the soda. A State Farm IP address deleted references to lawsuits related to Hurricane Katrina.”

At the heart of Melillo’s article is that public relations/communications professionals make poor ethical choices. “The problem doesn’t lie with the public relations profession itself,” she says. ”It happens when some PR practitioners come to believe, either from their experiences in classrooms or corporate offices, that the little white lies and twisting of facts are acceptable ways to do business and get ahead. Numerous examples—from RadioShack CEO David Edmondson who lost his job after lying on his resume, to the case of former MIT admissions dean Marilee Jones. who claimed to hold three degrees she never earned—prove that deceit never pays.”

The idealist part of my thinking wants to believe that in a society as large as ours, these kinds of ethical dilemmas are bound to occur. And, that they take place in many professions, not just communications. A different part of me, however, perhaps more of a realist, remembers these kinds of slips being taken for granted in the business world…a continual blurring of ethical boundaries in the name of branding or reputation.

In some cases there is a disconnect between what students are taught about ethics and what then happens in the professional world. I know this overly generalizes and calls into question the fantastic work done by hundreds of thousands of communicators each day. The high profile cases, though, add to the collective bad name of the public relations industry.

What do we do about this? Yet again…another issue that needs addressed by scholars and professionals.

One of the most perplexing aspects of public relations is attempting to define great writing. Every single job ad in the PR/communications world demands some form of “outstanding writing skills,” “superior writing and editing,” etc.

However, there is no universal way to know what these means. I’ve talked with hiring managers who want even seasoned professionals to take a writing test because clips are too polished and don’t give the person doing the hiring the kind of insight they need to know if the candidate can actually write. For a veteran, though, a writing test will probably be seen as demeaning.

My primary reason for teaching is to teach students how to write. I’m a strong proponent of the “whole student” mentality…teach them how to write well and they will be able to apply that skill to any particular type of business writing that they are asked to do. Some professors teach PR writing from a different perspective, going through the different types required so that the students have some experience with each, whether a release, feature story, speech, etc.

Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a forum for getting professionals involved in the process of teaching writing. It is the heart and soul of this profession, yet we as teachers can only go on what we know from our own experience or through research. Meanwhile, we are training students for the day they become professionals without a link to the professional world, unless it is through private networking, informal interviews, and other means we use to pry information from working practitioners.

If I had a repository of actual work done by professionals, I would be the happiest guy in the world (no comments, please, about what that says about my drab life).

Obviously, we can pull releases, annual reports, etc. from the Web, which is a wonderful way to get students thinking about what it means to be a professional writer. But, those finished pieces do not get at the process of how a document goes from draft to completed product. Understanding the process is a key aspect of learning the trade. Some students will get this in internships, but even then, some internships do not allow students to write releases (in some cases, for good reason).

I often hear professionals moan about bad writing from young staff members. And, practitioners thank me when they find out that I teach writing and say how desperately they need good writers. Where is the disconnect here? There is a kink in the pipeline between teaching and those in the practice. I would love to hear what you think. And, if you’re a student, I think both scholars and academics would enjoy hearing your thoughts about writing from the student perspective. Dive in!

With a two year old daughter, my wife and I do not get to go to the movies anymore. When we did, like most people, we enjoyed the previews of upcoming films. Looking around a bit, one could see people all over the theater giving the preview an immediate thumbs up or down. Not surprisingly, given my wife’s genius, her gut-level reactions were usually right on. Those trailers she deemed bad equalled a bad movie 100 percent of the time.

Over the years I have seen this same thing work with a variety of people across any number of media channels. Sitting with friends, a commercial for a new TV series is given judge and jury immediately. Shortly thereafter, the series is cancelled.

I do not think that my wife or people I know have any special insight into modern popular culture. Rather, everyone has developed such a finely tuned b.s. monitor. The pace (and chaos) of life causes us to dial out anything that stinks. Bad movies bomb, horrible TV shows disappear, and garbage music ends up in the garbage.

Given this phenomenon, though, a lot of crap still gets through. I wonder about this all the time. Even though everyone and their brother knew Kevin Federline’s CD would bomb, he still got to make it. Lindsay Lohan is a horrible actress and obviously supremely messed up in real life, but studios still hire her. Certain NASCAR drivers have no chance of winning each week and serve as little more than moving obstacles, yet they get to show up each week.

This is a perplexing situation. We know what is no good, but cannot seem to really escape what is being pushed at us. I wonder if there is a correlation with the way companies use marketing and public relations? Is there a way to flip the two-way communication model so that we on the communicatins side tap into the consumer b.s. monitor before spending time/money/effort on doomed campaigns?

Current attempts, such as focus groups and online surveys, are not the answer, we all know that. But, is there another means to getting at this crucial information? I think this is an area in which corporate communicators and academics could examine together, if willing to share resources and information.

What do you think?

An article, ”For the Common Good,” in the Birmingham Business Journal discusses how companies can benefit from using an advertising agency-owned PR firm and offers local case studies of effectiveness.

The client perspective is given by Doug Schneider, vice president of marketing with Bayer Properties.

“The real reason to do something like this is that it’s the right long-term strategy for building your brand,” Schneider said. “By having your public relations and advertising in one location, you have a better likelihood of having a consistent message for a customer.”

What I like about Schneider’s comment is that he focuses on integration as a means of brand building.

I think that if more public relations and advertising scholars, as well as other communications academics, broke down the silos that make them so discipline-centric, there would be more cross-discipline (and potentially, applicable to the corporate world) work done. I assume that the challenge would then be who determined what branding is and which disciplines would lead the effort, similar to the debate around IMC. But, I can dream of a time in which we’re united in effort, right?

[TANGENT ALERT] As I sit here sipping my morning coffee, I’m imagining an academic colleague’s response to this post and wondering if he or she would question whether scholars should be doing work that ties closely with practitioners. Perhaps my desire to see a tight working relationship between scholars and professionals isn’t shared by most on either side of the fence.

What I have learned in the handful of years I’ve been an academic is that I have more time to really think about challenges that I faced over a decade of professional life. I can read and study problems with more focus because it informs my teaching and scholarly interests. The students benefit, obviously, but the breakdown I see is that it stops there, unless I go out and hustle for consulting gigs.

Maybe in a perfect world a link between professionals and scholars would be a form of knowledge management. We would be a source that practitioners could tap to solve challenges that they can’t. Currently, many scholars do have ties or consult for organizations, but I would like to see this institutionalized on both sides. There is real benefit for all.

I tell my public relations students that if they want to become millionaires, all they need to do is figure out one big communications “challenge:” return on investment (ROI). The common perception is that since public relations cannot figure out a reasonable and understandable method for proving its ROI value, then all the hardnosed businesspeople won’t take the profession seriously. On the other hand, marketing is supposed to have a leg up on PR because it has done a better job of measuring itself monetarily.

Think again…

The Adweek article “Marketers Bemoan Intra-Accountability” by Aaron Baar points out the difficulties marketers have in proving ROI to their organizational counterparts, according to the Association of National Advertisers’ fourth annual accountability study.

Here are some high/lowlights: 

• 48% noted poor organizational response to marketing ROI data

• 42% hold dissatisfaction with measurement systems

• 45% said they were frustrated with a lack of ROI definition

• 22% indicated “full” cooperation between marketing and finance departments

• 55% said their marketing ROI goals were in line with their company’s corporate goals

• 51% divulged that there were no written goals for marketing ROI

For the public relations professional perspective on measurement, see the Bulldog Reporter article, which runs excerpts from a number of agency leaders.

For public relations, marketing, or other “communications” professionals, regardless of the umbrella term used to describe their jobs, the ROI challenge presents a fantastic opportunity to work with their brethren in academe.

One of the biggest discrepancies I have seen between those in academe and working professionals is the ongoing discussion regarding integrated communications and public relations’ role within integrated marketing communications (IMC).

Personally, based on my own experiences in Corporate America, I think companies are moving completely to IMC-based communications. However, the sticking point seemed to be breaking down the silos around the different areas under the IMC umbrella. In other words, too many fiefdoms and too many chiefs protecting turf.

Many scholars, on the other hand, take a hardline approach favoring “pure” public relations. In general, they view PR’s effectiveness sullied by the notion of marketing, or selling products. They also worry that public relations will lose power within the organization if lumped together with the other IMC disciplines.

My belief is that organizations will continue to integrate communications functions, particularly as social media and online communities keep growing. It only makes sense that all of a company’s communications would be working off the same script (though anyone who has spent time in the businessworld knows this isn’t always the case). To learn more about integrated communications and social media, check out Brian Solis’ PR 2.0 blog.

In discussing IMC with dozens of professionals from around the country, one remark stood out, which I always share with my students. An integrated agency CEO explained, “I need people with creative skills, but when I’m hiring a future leader, I always lean toward PR people. They understand the strategy and how the pieces of an integrated campaign fit together.”