Excellent points Mr. Edelman.

One thought to add to the mix: as "who you know, who you trust" online becomes a bigger component of non-early adopters' lives, what should we - both the technical and pr early adopters do to make more trust possible?

I'm speaking from the perspective of a micro-ISV (a self funded software startup), but what would you urge developers do?

Richard, Interesting findings. I wonder where PR professionals sit in this "trust" barometer. They are neither peers, or family, or friends. Yet they seek to recommend and influence media coverage, and viral messaging, etc.

There are too many PR people who know little to nothing about the companies they represent or their products. From my experience in covering the tech industry at the Financial Times, and elsewhere, some PR professionals don't even know if their client is a software or a hardware company.

Yet these are the people that say they can influence favorable coverage of their clients in the client's industry, and in the broader media.

I would say this study is a big wake up call. The PR industry had better start reinventing itself right now...and be quick about it, imho.

Fascinating.

Now we see where value can be created quite clearly. The "person like yourself or your peer" is where value is transferred. Effective Public Relations which influences the culture of "person like yourself or your peer" as part of a conversation taps into these conversations, not to deliver 'messages' but to engage the trusted messengers and their peers.

This means that PR has to work in both directions – from the organisation and into the organisation - as a conduit and driver for perpetual change in the process of levering wealth for both the organisation and the community.

Sometimes this is not easy (in the last year examples are Dell, iPod and the Radio 4 theme tune), but in the end the outcome is healthy for both company and consumer.

This goes further than "How can companies embrace this future of empowered stakeholders? Speak from the inside out, telling your employees and customers what is happening so they can spread the word for you. Be transparent, revealing what you know when you know it while committing to updating as you learn more," because it requires a capability to listen to the response of both internal and external communities.

How do we do this? We have to be better at monitoring and analysing the content of the 'long tail' and we have to be better at responding at the speed of mouse.

Monitoring and evaluation is the easy part, that only requires a capability to adapt technologies and that costs a few thousand dollars. Responding is harder because it means that public relations has to be part of the corporate DNA, and not just answering to the fading authority of the dominant coalition by working with the ever changing and morphing groups within the enterprise.

Are we seeing the role of Public Relations changing into a definition that adapts from Edward B. Tylor's definition of culture and into "that complex whole which creates cultural space for an organisation including knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society to lever values though the creation of effective relationships."

We do know quite a few things about trust. For example, we know that trust comes not from blind faith, but from relationships and *repeated* interactions. If I've interacted with you many times I'll come to trust you when there's an issue to deal with. (Just like a marriage: if you only talk wehen the kids have been arrested, you'll deal with the issue but you wan't build trust or a relationship.) The implication for PR is that they must help their clients interact with their publics when they don't HAVE to, so they can can draw on that relationship capital when they need to.

We also know that trust isn't readily transferrable, and that we trust people not institutions. (We NEVER trust institutions, and the PR industry that has grown up to try and make this happen is a rip-off.)Exactly as The Cluetrain Manifesto said, the key to all this is to re-humanize by actually getting real people, not their hired representatives, to interact.

So, as has been suggested here, PR must do less trying to represent their clients, and be more like true counselors, trying to help their client executives do better public relations themselves. Any journalist will tell you that they ignore the phone calls of what they see as PR flacks, but will instantly return the calls of a CEO himself or herself. (But what does THAT do to the economics of the PR business if you can't leverage junior people churning out press releases?)

Tom Forenski's point above is absolutely correct. Professionals of all kinds pretend to know more about their clients' industries than they really do, and it hurts them badly. Now there's a PR and trust lesson for you: you can't be trusted if you're actually faking it.

David
This is why I want PR to have a seat at the table...and why PR people have to Live in Color...to be integral part of their communities within and outside of the company. They need to bring relationships from broad stakeholder world. Your Taylor quote is terrific.

You are going to gain trust if...
You listen
You make changes suggested by your interested community You acknowledge error You speak through multiple channels You allow dissonance and don't control Forget the message and embrace the conversation

I think that the PR business has to adapt, from a world of mass production to custom dialogue, from press releases and pitching to listening and counselling. It means more training and fewer but better people, a model more akin to consulting and law firms than the broad pyramid used in the past with worked pushed downward. But be clear that I don't just want experienced people working on my business--I want those who are steeped in their communities, who Live in Color by engaging in arts or NGOs or whatever.

Mr. Edelman,

I couldn't agree more. As a college student heavily involved with public relations it is reassuring to know that there is a bright, exciting future to the profession. I know my peers and I are ready to jump in. It's about time we started listening, building those relationships and converging. Your blogs make wonderful discussion topics in the classroom.

Richard -

I think you're argument is wonderfully eloquent and spot on. There was a study several years ago that pointed to internet audiences gravitating to user created content, at the time they referenced tools such as e-mail and instant messaging. Today, the tools have developed further and include rich media solutions such as audio and video podcasts, blogs, and RSS. With these new techniques, the dialogue has evolved and grown from peer-to-peer sharing of personal content to a much broader and engaged space on virtually any topic that includes corporations, non-profits, stakeholders, and individuals.

Clearly the rules of engagement for the communications community have been redefined.

Jason Cohen
President
CityCast Media, LLC.

This is truly exciting time for PR business. We have the opportunity to get involved in product creation, in employee activation and in bridging between companies and critics such as NGOs. Thanks for reading my blog.

This is a untrue time for PR business. Now you have the opportunity to show your moral standards and your communications skills, dealing with the shameful Edelman-WalMart disaster. Thanks for reading my comment.

Richard,

It's a shame that in spite of all the high profile scandals involving PR pay for play, and the ensuing condemnations from people like yourself, the practice continues to thrive. I hope you succeed with our trade associations in strengthening the principles that guide the industry. Perhaps their leadership would even consider playing more prominent roles in publicly denouncing these abberant, but damaging transgressions? Just a thought.

Best,

Peter

Thank you for this post, Richard. I couldn't agree more with you. We're really at a crossroads as a profession and, for the first time, I really see the value in the APR and in trying to create and enforce other standards for our profession. We need to really separate ourselves from the bad actors -- but do it BEFORE scandal breaks.

Richard,

A decade ago in the PRSA national assembly I put forward a proposal to create a new form of institutional membership so that firms and corporations could be held accountable for ethical behavior.

Among the proposed obligations were the following: (1) Employers would be obligated to make adherence to the ethical code a requirement of employment; (2) Employers would be allowed to say in their public communications that they adhered to the ethical code; and (3) Corporate members would make adherence to the code a contractual requiremenent for all consultants.(Some elemnts of the proposal are not presented here.)

Needless to say the proposal was not passed. Until there is a significant professional community that considerers ethics a duty and obligation such that they speak up or take action to make others aware of unethical behavior, public relations will be a term with as many negative as positive meanings.

Well done......I wrote an article about the PR licensing the PR consulting biz.....a number of years ago....my CPRS colleagues thought I was coming from another planet.

David

Rick, a loud bravo. The blurring of distinctions between "news" and advocacy -- blogs, for example -- cries out for ethical leadership.

In the media, the stories of corruption are part of the folk lore. I was once recruited to become sports editor of a Florida newspaper that had recently been purchased by a national chain. I was astounded at the low salaries paid to the writers. The writers unabashedly explained to me that a certain publicist in town represented a dog track, jai-alai, a minor league team and some other sports-oriented facilities such as bars. Part of the sports writers' jobs had been to boost these businesses, and the publicist paid them well for their services.

There was also an old business editor at one of the Atlanta papers. When a company would call seeking a story, the editor would urge the caller to hire a PR firm, and he would offer the telephone number of one he thought would do a good job. A few minutes later, another phone on his desk would ring, and he would answer, "Brand X PR." The companies would get their stories -- and the editor just shortened the distance between publicist and scribe.

And, in a story that got a fair amount of attention -- I broke it, and Editor & Publisher did its own version -- a Tampa sports editor also owned a travel agency (given to him, not so incidentally, by George Steinbrenner). The travel agency, as I reported, collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from teams the sports editor wrote about. The media group that owned the editor's newspaper not only knew about the arrangements, but condoned them -- the group, of course, had never told readers about the sports editor's dealings.

My point is that there have always been journalists willing to selling their services. And there have always been buyers. The conduits have often been PR firms and related entities.

In this new era, the complexities of media are expanded. That provides many new opportunities for PR, marketing and advertising. However, it also opens up new ways to corrupt communications.

What I find encouraging is that PR leaders, such as Mr. Edelman, are taking a far more ethical position than many in the media. The media are not transparent, despite many claims to the contrary. I've been on both sides of the fence, and while a newspaper or TV station might fire a reporter who took a bribe, the very same media groups are quite willing to cook deals that inevitably skew coverage in order to achieve a financial advantage.

I'd only dispute (or question) one point. I assume that by licensing, you're referring to industry groups, such as PRSA, and not to any form of government licensing. That would be as anathema to the First Amendment as licensing journalists.

John Sugg
Senior Editor
CL Newspapers/CL Media
Atlanta

Richard,

After providing PR counsel to clients in the US, AP and Europe for nearly a decade, I share your frustration and applaud you for calling for the key associations in the PR business around the world to consider licensing PR firms in their countries to do business.

I also share your vision that we need to go further, that there should be a clear code of conduct for PR professionals and CEOs of PR firms, but I believe responsibility should extend to the media as well. In addition, while I agree it makes sense to raise this to the PRSA, I believe it to be a much larger topic that should be addressed and agreed upon at a higher level.

Two quick thoughts on your upcoming board meeting:
1) You may wish to briefly refer to how Ivy Lee sought to prove the value of honest communication to press and public through his "Declaration of Principles in 1906," and how Walter Lippman in his book, "Manufacturing Consent," exposed the mass media’s loss of impartiality and distortion of news as a result of being governed by major corporations.

2) You may be interested to know that in the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has recently extended their remit to the Internet. While they can't stop the viral campaigns once they get started, they can issue warnings to companies that circulate violent or questionable material. (For more information about the ASA, visit www.asa.org.uk) While monitoring the Internet brings up all kinds of questions, it is a topic worthy of discussion when it comes to global codes of conduct.

Again, I commend you for taking this on. I would welcome the opportunity to become more involved in this initiative. I'm currently based in London.

Kind regards,
Langley Allbritton
GuideDog PR

I am sincerely outraged with the corruption of PR pratices and I believe it was absolutely neccessary for you to speak openly about this. As a college student on the verge of entering the field of PR, I think it is a neccessary decision to have a code of proper behavior. Public Relations is already a victim of complaints and having a reputation of being untrustworthy. Those entering the world of PR should have respect for the field and in no way want to take the chance of having people discredit their practice. I do not want my field to be thought of as "sleazy." When I graduate and enter my profession, I want to make a contribution to proving that PR is a trustworthy and ethical field.
Although unwise decisions have been made in the past, I believe it's important to have the new generation of PR practioners, such as myself, understand the seriousness of this issue. Practioners should be educated in college as well as on the job about these ethical concerns. Not only should the CEO sign this code of behavior, but every employee as well.
As far as having the code bar media companies from having a licensed PR firm in the family, I believe that a little extreme. Realistically, people choose their own professions and you can't deny someone a profession because of a business that a family member owns. I couldn't imagine knowing that receiving a major in PR was off limits to me if my cousin owned a media company.
However, I do believe it would be realistic to bar licensed PR firms from doing business with the particular media company owned by their family members.
In conclusion, i definitely agree with your idea and I'm glad to know that someone is taking the neccessary actions to deal with this issue. I feel it's important for all PR practioners to work together to restore and maintain a positive image of the Public Relations field.

Right on. Public relations is just that as practiced by the pros. As a journalist, Iknow the difference between propaganda and information that's factual.

Good approach. I'd hope to see such commitments extend beyond PR firms though. Communication policies for governments and corporations should also be that specific in their ethical guidelines.

Richard,

You cannot imagine how important it is for us working in a country like the Philippines to see you picking up this fight.

What is a matter of scandal in Birmingham is current practice in most emerging markets and puts us under enormous pressure to defend our ethical standards, not only with our clients but also with our employees. They understand and practice our values, and they're even proud to work for a firm that believes in ethical standards, but anything you do in this direction can greatly encourage them.

Thank you, please, keep at it!

Robert

Richard,
I think the time is always right to demand that professionals behave more professionaly. Let me explain. Our profession is not regulated except for very few countries in the world and we know that where they do regulate the motivation was quite different ( think of Nigeria and Brasil under previous political regimes as exmaples of where this is happening) and far less in line with the kind of driving motivation you have described. I have had the privilege for the past two years,to lead the Global Alliance- the umbrella group that provides a forum for discussing these types of initiatives. Together we have proclaimed a universal code of ethics and are having all of our fifty plus national associations ratify it by the end of the year. It is a start. I can tell you that I support the objective and essence of your proposal. It is nothing short of unprofessional to have only 10% of PR people belong to a professional body. What does it take for the other 90% to see that they are not helping their own cause? Licensing firms or individuals within a firm through the APR or other equivalents is the way to go. The GA is now working on a global accreditation model which could culminate in a global standard. It is important that we all get behing these initiatives and start joining the PR pros who have made the commitment to belong to a professional body, adhere to ethics code and get their APR.

Robin,

I agree but am going to stay with reforming PR...big enough for me.

Scott thanks for writing. I am visiting Council of PR Firms and PRSA. Also have interest from the non US players. Keep in touch

OK David
Let's try it again
I push on my side of the border, you on yours We have to make this a public fight
We cannot allow the status quo because PR will suffer
I would be glad to come up to CPRA meeting to discuss Will you try for a date?

Vincent,
OK here is your second chance
Pass along the entire proposition
I am at PRSA board meeting on Sunday as a guest I will push it...believe me

John,
Great post
Absolutely licensing by PR Society of America or like body In other countries Thanks for writing

Langley,

I love the Ivy Lee citation. My assistant will find that for me Could you send me the best of what you find in the IPRA standards or the UK PR association standards?
Agree on the media--but I am going to focus on the PR side. We have so much to do to clean up our own house. Thanks for writing

Sherri,

I am just trying to make sure there is a division between church and state--meaning media and PR. If a PR firm has sold an equity interest to a member of media, then the ability to make critical independent judgment is compromised. Thanks for writing...and go into PR

Hi there my Davos pal, Diane
We have to be sure that we keep the line between paid and earned media. You as the journalist make the call on content, not the publisher nor the client.

JV can you send me a copy of what the global group is proposing? In theory I would like to be part of the support group. Thanks for writing

Good for you Robert
Keep fighting for what is right
Which is a free press that is basis of democracy

TF
PR folks are right at the bottom of the list of credible spokespeople Just above entertainers and athletes Below lawyers, elected officials` Why is that Because too often PR folks are seen as "spinmeisters" or not substantive In this new flatter world we will have to improve our knowledge and our standing Thanks for writing
And PS send TF the entire Trust study PDF
Tom you will find the industry trust rankings particularly useful Tech is #1 trusted

thanks for your response to tom. i agree with all of your points, but think you missed one of the main weak points in tom's arguments. he makes the case for search engine advertising, essentially "vs. traditional advertising". but tom misses the larger point that ANY advertising (search engine, newsprint, heck, sponsored-smoke-signals) has diminished credibility - full stop.

people wont accept unilateral, always-positive messages (found in paid ads) from any insitution as a means of building trust. given the flood of information at all of our fingertips from countless resources, institutions can only build trust by becoming a trusted resource for ALL information about themselves - the good, the bad and the ugly.

CD as usual right on
Trust Barometer shows a 9 to 1 advantage in belief in message in free media over paid

Richard, thank you for taking so much time to respond to my recent posts on the PR industry.

I never said PR does not stimulate sales, I said that the whole point of PR is to stimulate sales. But that for most companies, the ROI on PR is not very good. Fine, if you have a large brand such as Microsoft Xbox, it's easier to hit your mark, but for small startups and many others, the money they spend on PR could be better spent on new communications. And the new communications is communicating directly to your customers or potential customers.

Overall, what disappoints me about the PR industry is how it hangs on so tightly to the old ways of going about its business. We, in the media, are being forced to look for new ways of publishing, etc, but in PR, it is still business as usual. And I can't but help think that there is going to be a reckoning of sorts because both PR and Media have moved hand in hand in terms of their respective boom and bust cycles.

Yes, there is a lot said about the intangible benefits of PR, as if to say that it is something which cannot be measured, just take our word for it. Well, there is a lot of the marketing pie that is measurable these days, online advertising for example. Which means that as more and more of the intangible marketing spend is measurable, then the "intangible" PR part becomes measurable through subtraction. And it should be interesting to see how companies change their marketing spend in response.

Also: Yes, there are more media outlets, there is an enormous fragmentation going on. But that means applying traditional forms of PR to those niche media outlets becomes nearly impossible and extremely expensive. And, it isn't being done. I can't tell you how many times PR companies and large company communications departments ask me "How do we deal with the bloggers?"

I could tell you the answers . . . :-) However, those constant questions mean that the PR industry isn't dealing with the fragmentation, it is mostly stuck like a deer in the headlights, and we can continue that metaphor to its conculsion if you wish...:-)

"You can't get there from here" is a phrase that I use time and time again because it aptly demonstrated how people continue to defend their traditional business models in the face of overwhelming evidence that times are changing--and they are changing much faster than many think...

Yes, you are right that PR is much more than only press relations, unfortunately, the majority of so called PR-specialists know nothing about IR and R, for instance. I asked my colleagues (45 persons) and only 2 of them making smth other, not building press relations.

TF doing all my responses tonight just back from Davos
agree with your critique if you assume PR folks are just considering blogosphere as broader definition of media
and if PR types continue to pitch stories as they have to reporters
I see PR role as fundamentally changing
To one where PR folks listen to broad group of stakeholders
Where PR folks also are substantive as hell...really well informed on companies they represent and ready to talk about them and the products
Where PR folks are genuinely part of the conversation, adding value...not simply middlemen
Where PR folks offer serious counsel that alters corporate behavior
That is where I am taking my firm...and my people are making it happen
More when I see you in SValley

Inna,
To have a media that is believed by its readers/viewers, we have to keep the iron clad line between advertising and PR. You know that Imageland is our affiliate in your country. Ms. Moiseeva is eloquent on the subject.

Richard,
You are right on target. I believe that fundamental to the decision to bypass traditional media is a distrust in the ability of publics to see bias and distortion in communication. These practitioners think that people in fact will believe everything they see and hear. They believe in a hypodermic model of media effects.

If you treat publics as reasonably intelligent adults, who when they are interested will pay attention to multiple messages, then there is little to fear from a "biased" media. The keys to eing effective in such conditions have already been discussed: transparency in action and decsion making, and dialogue- availability to openly address questions and issues.

Abraham Lincoln was right. You can fool some of the people all of the time. And you can fool all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

I don't think I agree with the last point that corporate PR counsel to our executives should be to provide "unmediated" material to the consumer because journalism is not practices today. PR pros must compensate for the unbalanced perspectives that show up in the work of today's journalist. It think your view was true in our past. But, it is no longer the smartest thing to let the consumer take the "raw material" and let them balance that with how journalist will position the information. The outcome is something farther from an appropirate consideration of the information than if PR pros conditioned the information before releasing it.

DG ok I generally buy into your argument on raw material. But if there are transcripts of discussions or other such supporting data, this should be made available to consumers.

Interesting point on self selection of audiences. I am concerned about it--there is less a town square effect from network TV than a echo chamber of watching and reading only what is reflective of your own ideology.

I think your post is a valuable one, and I applaud the fact that you make the difference between "can" and "should" do.

I think that if "Redskins TV" wants to exist, it should not provide 'exclusives' and shut mainstream media out; it needs to think of this as an "and", not an "or".

The concept of disintermediation is a wonderful thing. But getting directly to consumers isn't the only thing we should do; we should also value the fact that even if the media sometimes get things wrong, they sometimes shed new light on subjects and provide new perspectives that we 'insiders' wouldn't have seen.