Seeing (however, not agreeing) the argumentation brought forward by Toni Muzi Falconi and your counter-arguments, would like to pick out one statement I think is important: “(…) The US based model of public relations practice (…) failed to instill the idea of a profession with a reputable identity.”

From my past and current experiences, I have seen (and coping with) different stages of development PR is undergoing in the various regions of the world, the self-perception of the respective PR pros in the respective regions as well as the different needs and wants clients address to PR (or don't).

Looking at the very sophisticated and diversified fields of PR in the USA, the PR profession is very confident not at least because there is a clearer understanding of the very nature of PR (or close to be clear considering its variety).

I read Falconi's statement that in Europe, PR is about to develop self-confidence by growing a more specific understanding of PR. True, the PR profession is still undergoing an identification process ('what are we to whom?') whereby its self-perception is ranging from “counsellor to the board” to “servant of sales” - or in a practical applications from "relationship manager" to "news pusher".

I agree to some extent that PR in Europe lacks a reputable identity, but mainly because it missed to become concrete and tangible to anyone outside of the PR business; the profession (I may allowed to call it such) indeed failed to make people become familiar with its concrete values and assets. I have seen no other profession in Europe where the gap between perception and self-perception is so striking obvious than in PR.

However, missing not only a reputable identity, but a reputation is definitely not the fault of an "US based model of public relations practice", but of Europe's PR practitioners. European PR - or better speaking of PR in Europe - is arguably undergoing a change process. As practitioner I am less academic, but look at this process from a corporate level: We (we PR professionals) are forced to become less egocentric, but show more responsibility - not selling PR, but rather its values.

Once we are becoming clear about our role(s), we not only are able to clearly articulate our values but also contribute in evidence to the corporate value-creation process. A cognitive performance. At that stage we shape identity for our profession (...and stop arguing about being continuously misunderstood).

Richard:

In part, the argument offered by Toni Muzi Falconi smacks of European jealousy spiced with contempt for all things American. He lists virtually all forms of public relations and lumps them together in some "American model." There will always be circus barker publicity and intellectually-driven strategic communications. We co-exist within the marketing sphere. The same could be said for the sensationalist Mirror and the serious Economist in the world of journalism. I wouldn't call that a "European model" of journalism. Rather,it is the norm worldwide, dictated by the tastes of a diverse audience.

What Toni Muzi Falconi should examine is the innovation that is occuring in U.S. public relations and PR's new relationship with journalism, thanks to the Internet in general and the blogosphere in particular. Two recent stories come to mind.

Matt Smith's piece in San Francisco Weekly "The 2005 Pulitzer Prize For Distinguished Public Relations" (http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2005-04-13/news/smith.html )finally gives the harried and under-appreciated publicist her due. The distinguished Pulitzer went to a Sacramento Bee writer for editorials that, Smith says, were instigated by a publicist for an eco group called Environmental Defense. The publicist should be given credit for her work by the Bee writer and the Columbia University Pulitzer nominating committee, says Smith.

Imagine that, a journalist actually acknowledging the importance of publicists in the generation of important news. Writes Smith:

"In an ideal journalistic world, you see, publicists wouldn't exist. Journalists would be resourceful, hardworking, and freethinking, never needing the press releases, story tips, staged interviews, and other "on-message" news that publicists provide. But because they often lack these qualities, reporters eventually wind up accepting at least some of the fare that publicists pass out, albeit with resentment and suspicion, even contempt."

Those of us who have toiled in the publicity pits know precisely what Smith is talking about. We are expected to know the media, know journalists and how they operate, know our client's story inside and out. In the best case, we are a secret weapon for the media, their invisible research arm. We are satisfied to remain behind the scenes, with no attribution.

This is a story I became aware of through a PR blog, linked to the SF Weekly story, now shared through this blog. Round and round we go. In a way, bloggers are publicists and journalists are being forced to admit that they get some great ideas from PR. Our roles, once squarely cordoned off, are shifting.

The other story is out today in The New York Times and concerns Michael Kinsley's grand experiment at The Los Angeles Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/business/media/13lat.html?). Not to date myself but I worked in the LA Times newsroom when it was just switching over to computers. I wrote my pieces on an old beater typewriter in triplicate carbon copy and stuffed them in a cylinder to be sucked up a vacuum tube to be set for the printing presses (that sounds so ancient!).

The LA Times was and still is known as a "writer's paper," meaning you could go on for 10,000 words about almost anything nobody cared about. Unfortunately that also means that it is not a "reader's paper," tht embraces innovation. Kinsley aims to change all that by essentially turning the editorial pages into an online wiki that can be accessed and contributed to by readers. He is breaking down the wall between reader and writer and juxtaposing their roles thanks to Internet-based communications tools available to anyone for free. He wants the editorial board to listen to readers through the wiki to find out what readers want. He wants readers to shape the newspaper of the future. Wow!

We are in an era of radical shifts in communication processes. It is happening all around us and much of it is originating in the U.S. We are taking free speech to a whole new level.

Richard,
I agree with your contra-arguments, but I also understand the words of Falconi.
I am a univeristy professor in Spain. As a European citizen, and as an academic in the arena of public relations, I am very worried about the misconceptions that from time to time appear in the media, and among professionals of PR in my country, and in other, as you see.
In Spain the label PR is not used as in USA or the rest of Europe. We prefer calling it "corporate communication" or "communication management", for instance.
The problem that I afford every course with my students is that they begin the course with these misconceptions your commentary shows. It is too difficult to teach public relations because of the preconception ideas students have. They think in the same way Falconi marks. And it is so surprise for me, considering that they are univeristy students in their last course.
I recently corroborated it in an article appeared in the web of a national broadcast Spanish tv, PR is always compare and reduced with "selling products", "manipulated de media", practicing spin control, etc. For example, the article began with a comparasion between PR and gas: "PR is like gas, when there is little it is OK, but when there is a lot in the air, it smells bad". What can I say about?...
Regarding with this, I will tell you one anecdote: I put this article in the exam, because I thought "well, let me try to verify what do my students think about this, and if they have learnt something during my subject". For my pride, the vast majority of the students -they are finishing their Bachelor- made a good essay arguing that PR is the practice of managing relationships between an organization or institution and its publics. In that sense, this means that a GOOD practice or the profession, because of its nature, is trying to enable the organization to gain the publics' support, offer information and permit to the publics to make their own judgement. The main general conclusion of my students was: 'let the publics decide in a democratic society in which they obtain information and opinions from several sources'.
The question that arise in other studens, in the other part, was: why the public and professionals limit their consideration about PR with practices that could be label as poor professional practices?
I think that when a profession has so many problems refering to its social image and consideration, this profession has a real problem that all of us, practitioners and academics, have to analize and solve, offering solutions for a better education and training of the future professionals.
Telling it in other way: Why do the historical heritage, as I consider, continue affecting so much to the social consideration of the profession? Is in this root where we can find the mis-perception that PR has?
Where is the real origin of this problem?
I hope that you can understand my English...

Richard -

I have to thank you. A comment I posted to you won me a very nice consulting gig with a group of parents in Portland, Oregon who coach kids to compete in Destination ImagiNation.

This is among the world's largest creativity and problem-solving programs for youth of all ages, with thousands of participants in 47 states, 15 countries and Canadian provinces participating annually. It is run by a nonprofit corporation, formerly called OM Association, that was founded in 1983.

The program, based in Glassboro, N.J., helps kids build important, lifelong skills, such as problem solving, teamwork and divergent thinking.

The competition is complicated, and it changes year to year. Basically, though, teams! choose one of five "challenges" early in the year, and practice whate ver they need to do before heading to competition.

I encouraged the parents to remember the three lives of PR -- before, during and after and suggested that the kids keep a diary and write their own articles.

Amazing how people connect with one another!

As always, when you're in Portland again, let's get together.

- Jack Rubinger, 503-469-9209

Jack,

Glad to help your business any way I can! Meet Erin she is boss of Edelman Portland and a smart lady.

Richard

Elena,

I understand your English perfectly.
The origins of this misperception for me are as follows:

Political PR gets a lot of attention, in the US especially. The Clinton spin room which went into service in 1992 campaign, really hurt the profession.

The origins of PR in show business--this is where the concept of press agentry was founded, with PR types trying to promote their movie star clients

The use of PR in controversial campaigns, such as the effort to gain support for the US Department of Education by paying conservative journalist to put spokespeople on the air.

I think we have to confront those who misuse our business, by ostracizing them or criticizing them publicly. But we also must be vigilant against those who continue to blast PR as unsubstantive and hype.

We are the bridge to the future--which is democratic decisionmaking. We need to act appropriately to guarantee our role in this future.

Richard