Bob Dittmer: Reflections

In my last post I discussed eligibility in general, Article III, Section 2 (a). In this post, I’ll discuss the remaining paragraphs of Section 2 (b thru e). Section 2 b and c are just fine. They represent the standard general membership requirements for professionals and for our student chapter members. Changes here simply consolidate this language efficiently.

Section 2 d, is on target, but needs some strengthening. Let’s look at it:

“Any individual who makes a material misstatement or omission of fact in an application for membership, including but not limited to concealing information regarding a conviction or sanction demonstrating the applicant’s violation of the PRSA Code of Ethics, may be barred from membership or expelled from the Society.”

Pretty hard to argue with this — and I don’t. We don’t need anyone who lies or violates our Code of Ethics in membership.

But how is the expelling or barring to be accomplished? Who makes the decision? We need to identify some adjudicating body here to handle such matters. This should not be left to the 17-member Board (they need to be focused on strategic decision making), and the staff should not be placed in this position either. This is a membership decision and a designated membership body should be specifically empowered to investigate and make a decision on the matter (that’s the adjudication process). Perhaps the Board of Ethics and Professional Standards. Not sure, but some enforcement element is needed here. The enforcement principle needs to be in the Bylaws; the details of how that works can be in the Policies and Procedures.

This problem will come up again when I discuss Section 3 on the Rights and Privileges of Membership.

Section 2e is on financial obligations and is absolutely on target. Make a commitment to pay a bill or dues? Then do it.

OK, continuing the review and reaction to proposed changes to the PRSA Bylaws, looking at Section 1 on membership this morning. This is another case of going too far. The existing classes of membership, General and Associate, have served quite well over the years. They are clearly defined and understood.

This change proposes we allow the PRSA Board of Directors COMPLETE latitude to add new classes of membership at their discretion and without review. This puts membership categories in the hands of a very select few. Without review and ratification by an Assembly (no provision for that), this small group of people could easily add classes of membership wildly disparate from what the rest of us would consider public relations.

The new provision even allows the Board to determine what those qualifications and requirements will be. The Board’s comments are: “adds fleexibility for the establishment of other membership classes.” I’ll discuss the proposed eligibility rules in the next post. They have significant problems as well.

I think we need to be open to new ideas, but this very broad-based approach is an open door to a select group of 17 members to determine who our colleagues in this industry will be. I’m even open to new membership classes too. but not at the complete discretion of the 17-member Board. To paraphrase from federal philosophy: The Board should propose and the Assembly should dispose.

If we are attempting to grow our membership — a good idea — this is NOT the way to do it. A better approach is to recognize that we are only 20,000 of the public relations professionals in the country and world that number represents, by almost every estimate, including the US Department of Labor, only about 10 percent of the PR professionals in this country alone.

Want to grow? Let’s go out and get those PR professionals who are not currently members to become PRSA members and take a role in leading this profession into the future.

Start thinking about corporate memberships and military memberships and government memberships and… Each should be considered and evaluated. Each could be a class in itself. Yet the rules need to be created and proposed to a greater representation of the members, and that’s the Assembly, for a final decision. NOT just 17 of us.

Admittedly, that effort, while being lead at the national level by the Board, also needs action at the chapter level where the rubber meets the road. We just need to rededicate ourselves to getting our colleagues to join our organization.

Instead of watering down our membership requirements to gain new members, we need to figure out what we can do to attract everyone in our profession. Our Board would be better used developing those kinds of approaches.

Finally, keep in mind that this provision also places complete control of who may become a member into the hands of only 17 people. Not a good idea. This is the role and function of the Assembly. But this set of proposed changes marginalizes the Assembly. More on that as we proceed with this analysis.

Well, I spent some of my Labor Day weekend reading an annotated presentation of PRSA’s upcoming Bylaws Revision. This is the series of changes — some very significant — to be presented to the PRSA Assembly in San Diego in early November.

This blog post begins a review process likely to take me at least two weeks and a series of posts to cover. I’ll look at the entire proposal in this post, in general, then examine each of the elements of the revision in some detail in succeeding posts. So if you’re interested, continue to watch this space. If not, that’s OK too.

My overall impression of these revisions is that they are draconian and generally undesirable. Oh, yes, there some good changes here, and I’ll point those out in succeeding posts. But some of these proposed changes I just fine unacceptable. Leadership changes, membership changes, control changes — all designed to centralize the power and authority of the association in one body, the Board of Directors. No due processes, no clear processes at all, overly broad membership definitions, an emasculated Assembly. Well, OK, you get the idea.

I’m not impressed.

I’m not happy.

I’m going to outline why over the next series of posts.

Then I’m going to communicate all of this again to chapter delegates.

After some recent discussions with other senior leaders, I am apparently not alone.

So, if you want more, and in more detail, watch this space over the coming weeks.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women held 49.83 percent of the jobs in the US in June of this year. And, they report this as a trend that should lead to women outnumbering men in the workforce soon (perhaps yet this year).

In our public relations industry, the trend is much more dramatic. A quick non-scientific sample of local conditions measured via PRSA membership suggests that the public relations profession is above 70 percent women and climbing. In our classrooms here (and I suspect just about everywhere else as well) women take about 85 percent of the seats.

Trend: Women are dominating this profession.

OK, fair enough. When I entered the profession some years ago (yeah, a few!) men dominated it. I suppose turn about is fair play. Personally, I don’t care so long as the professionalism and quality of our work as a profession continues to improve — and I believe it is (recent bad practices by some notwithstanding). Our young professionals enter the workforce smart, knowing more about this business than we did at their age, and have better developed skills than we did.

Of course, it still leaves the wage and salary disparity issue unresolved. A more complicated issue than most realize, but nonetheless an important issue to address.

What impact will women dominating the workforce have? Good question. Anyone looking for a research project?

Remember your Mom telling you, “You always need to make a good first impression?” Well she was, of course, right. Not only in your personal presentation, but also in your online presentation to others.

Indeed, you website, personal, corporate or otherwise, is very often your “front door” and first impression to others. As denizens of the Internet search you out or follow a link to you, their first impression of you or your organization is the look, feel, navigation and usefulness of your website. It’s your Welcome Mat.

That’s where the first find out details about you and/or your organization. Your first impression.

What kind of “first impression” does your website (or by extension, you Blog) make for you? Is it attractive? Easy to navigate? Provide the promised information quickly and easily? Is it interactive? Is it engaging? Is it fun?

If not, your website may not be doing you justice — your first impression to others a false one. But, one they will assume is accurate. If they are not impressed, interested, informed or engaged, they will leave, never to return.

In this era of Social Media, don’t forget that the home page of your website is still your highly important first impression for most today. It’s your Welcome Mat. Do you have a nice Welcome Mat?

As we begin our Fall 2009 semester, all public relations classes at IUPUI are nearly full. The number — and quality — of students continues to improve. These young people are very impressive.

Our Master’s program in Public Relations also continues to thrive. In only our second year we now have more than 40 students! Only two years. They range from the very experienced to the novice, from those with public relations backgrounds to those just learning about public relations, from very young to seasoned veterans. And we enjoy international representation via student from India and Turkey.

And the interest in the program continues unabated with nearly 100 candidates expressing interest in the past year.

One thing this represents it recognition that a graduate education in public relations is valuable and valued. While there is certainly some element of a down economy driving students to the program, there is much more to it.

Promises a bright future for our profession with such bright students studying our profession in detail and preparing for management positions.

Mike Cherenson, Chair of PRSA, recently posted a blog responding to attacks from members of the profession on Accreditation via PRSA. Their point: experience is more important than professional education. Mike addresses the issue directly and effectively. Read Mike’s response here: http://bit.ly/29VOZ5. But he’s being diplomatic.

So here are a few personal thoughts on the issue as Mike and others have addressed it. First, by way of disclosure, I have long been a strong supporter of PRSA’s Accreditation program. I was accredited in 1993. To my mind, it is the best service PRSA provides to the profession after chapter and section activities.

Second. while I agree that experience is important, so too is education — of all kinds. Let’s address each of those separately.

First, while experience CAN lead to greater professional effectiveness, not all experience results in greater understanding. Many experiences lead to no additional understanding at all. Many just confirm that what you do is working or not working. Or, worse, you don’t do any evaluation of your efforts, so you don’t even know if what you are doing is worth the effort — or your company’s or client’s money!

Additionally, experience tends to lead us into behavioral patterns of activities — it creates comfort zones that we tend not to deviate from both professionally and personally. Thus, we continue to do what we have always done.

Education forces professionals to expand their skills, knowledge and abilities. We all have BA degrees for a reason. We get graduate education for a reason. Professional development through professional education — and yes, accreditation, is an important component of advancing the profession and the professional.

Indeed, Accreditation through PRSA sets a professional standard for public relations practitioners to measure themselves against. Make no mistake, I consider it a minimum standard, but is is a standard none the less. And most will agree it is not that easily attained.

Accreditation and education allow professionals to learn beyond the blinders of their own experiences. Those who deny professional education are probably not bringing sufficient background to their client’s work. They function with experiential blinders on.

Experience and education are partners in a career in any profession: medicine, law, or public relations.

A professional career should be advanced through three components:

Formal education, professional development, and experience. Formal education is provided by colleges and universities via undergraduate and graduate degree programs.

Experience comes from actually providing public relations services and learning from those experiences.

Professional development comes from education through workshops, seminars and Accreditation. This approach leads to a well-rounded professional who continuously advances their skills, knowledge and abilities and enhances the profession thereby.

So for those who attack Accreditation, I ask: Are you Accredited? Are you gaining the professional development you need to be a better public relations pro? Are you advancing the profession?

The APR is a professional credential. It has significant value. If you have not attained it, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution! Congratulations to the thousands of public relations professionals out there who are Accredited in Public Relations and ARE part of the solution to enhancing our profession.

As Amazon buys Zappos, merging two major online retailers, their CEO’s decided to forgo traditional media (like news conferences and interviews) and just let their news releases and PR people do the talking. But NOT TO EMPLOYEES!

Both CEO’s chose social media applications to address employees on the critical concerns they would have in any such M&A situation. If you’ve been through one, you know your first questions is: What about my job?

Jeff Bezos of Amazon used video pushed directly to Zappos employees to talk to them about the acquisition, its benefits for both organizations, and address employee concerns. Bezos is good on camera and so it was an excellent choice.

Tony Hsieh of Zappos, who may well be less polished and comfortable with video, chose to go with a detailed blog post and push that to employees. It’s detailed, personal, and seems very open, transparent and reassuring.

While only time will tell, both seem quite effective, and it is certainly telling that both chose social media communication channels for this, albeit different ones. Demonstrates the effectiveness of social media and the versatility of the medium as well.

Watch Jeff Bezos
Read Tony Hsieh

By now every pundit has weighed in on the passing of Walter Cronkite; every network has run a special — with more coming. Everyone on Twitter has expressed their thoughts. So instead, here are some personal reflections of the man I grew up with reporting the news every night.

My generation grew up with Walter as our guide to the world and its events. Every night in our household we watched Walter. If Walter said it was true, we needed nothing further to make us believe it. It was so. My parents trusted him implicitly. Even this weekend, in conversation, my 88 year-old mother noted that she hasn’t trusted anyone else quite like that since.

We were on a first name basis with him even though we didn’t know him personally — and yet we did. For he was the most trusted man in America. Yes, you’ve heard that before. But it really was true – at least for us.

So the question is really: Why? No one since has commanded such respect, trust and confidence. Neither presidents nor Popes, pundits nor Press. I think I have at least part of the answer.

Walter Cronkite was not a better journalist than others of his day – nor even today. But he was among the best, there is no question about that. What set Walter apart was his impartiality, his objectivity. Yes, I know, we expect our reporters to be impartial and objective and recognize they are not really – they just do their best. The difference with Walter was that his best was The Best.

He was a thorough reporter of the news, as were and are most. What Walter was able to do was deliver that news objectively with no nuance, no inflection, no expression of opinion of any kind. Watch some of his newscasts. Even his non-verbals (expressions, tone, gestures, etc.) are neutral. His language was factual and neutral. He implied absolutely NO meaning beyond just the facts. He let us decide how we felt based on the facts. And we trusted him for that like we trusted no one else.

Yes, he strayed from that a couple of times. He showed emotion at the report of President Kennedy’s assassination, and again when Armstrong walked on the moon. And he also once expressed an opinion – directly and not ambiguously – about the war in Vietnam.

But other than those few instances, Walter gave it to us straight. No nuanced meanings, no raised eyebrows, no quirky smiles.

Do our newscasters provide us the same level of objective presentation today? Oh, I think they try. But they all fail to meet the standard of Walter Cronkite in my book. Maybe that’s just too high a standard. Maybe the public doesn’t want it that way anymore. Don’t know.

But I do know that as I reflect Walter Cronkite’s style as a newscaster, I know how much I miss that direct and objective approach. Thanks, Walter. We will miss you. Wish us all luck as we continue our adventure into the new world of online and social journalism.

And that’s the way it was.

Well, if you’ve heard this one…

Is customer service public relations? Damn right it is! Don’t believe me? Read on.

United Airlines is the target of a very specific and original viral video campaign — and they should NOT be happy about it. The story:

Dave Carroll is a band member who travels with his band from gig to gig. In the Spring of 2008 he flew United and literally watched baggage handlers throw his $3,500 guitar around on the tarmac in Chicago. He reported it to airline employees who were indifferent about his problem. Of course, when he arrived at his destination he discovered his worst fears confirmed. They had destroyed his guitar.

Again, the airline, while even acknowledging the problem was theirs, denied liability for the damage and made no effort to compensate him in any way.

Carroll didn’t fall off the turnip truck last night. He made a promise, and is keeping it. He has written and performed a new song about the experience and produced a music video–which he has posted to YouTube. It has received 3 million viewings in the last 10 days!

Hey, United: Can you hear me now?

Haven’t seen the video? Here it is:

United Breaks Guitars

So you decide: Three million people have viewed this video. Will it damage United’s reputation? How about financial damage, will people be less willing to fly the “friendly skys?”

You’re the VP of Public Relations for United. What do you do?