There’s an interesting debate in the comments of a guest post on CIPR president elect Stephen ‘Wadds’ Waddington’s blog. Alister Foye claims Wadds “is one cog in the engine of an oil tanker that has been on the wrong course for over a decade.”

This is very much at odds with my experience as most people I know who are active in the CIPR are not only saying very similar things to Wadds said, but actually doing something about it. I’m one, but only one of many. In recent years we’ve had many outstanding CIPR president’s, but two who’ve particularly stood out for me are Anne Gregory who finally helped us to achieve chartered status and Jay O’Connor who kick-started much of the recent programme of modernisation.

I’ve been a Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) member since I joined as a student member of the then IPR in the late 80s. For some, maybe much, of this time, I wasn’t particularly impressed by the institute and at sometimes was most definitely at odds with it. In 2006 I was one of many PR professionals to write blog posts criticising the stance taken by then CIPR director general Colin Farrington: CIPR’s elected officers must clarify policy and The tetchy chamberlain, part II. But I’ve also written supportive posts before: The value of CIPR membership.

If all of the people questioning the CIPR’s stance had simply walked away then we wouldn’t have achieved change. And surely that’s one of the most powerful and exciting things about public relations – we are change-makers.

I’ve always remained a member for the fairly fundamental reason that the CIPR is the professional institute of my profession. And it is now governed by a Royal charter. If I’m not happy with what the institute is doing in the name of my profession then it’s my job to do something about. Otherwise I’m not fit to call myself a public relations professional.

“It’s better to be inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in” and “together we are stronger than we are alone” might be clichés, but nevertheless they are true. It is by collective action that we have the most chance of improving the reputation of the public relations profession and defending it from encroachment by other professions such as management consultants and industries such as advertising and marketing.

My third reason for being a member of the CIPR is I feel it is my duty and obligation. The public relations business has been good to me. I’ve made a career out of it. Built a business. And thoroughly enjoy it. I should pay something back and serving the wider profession through the CIPR is one way I can do that.

I was encouraged to stand for the national CIPR council last year and have just stated my three year term so I know that Stephen Waddington is not a lone voice. I know that he has both breadth and depth of support throughout the country and throughout different disciplines and specialisms within the public relations profession.

I know that by working together we will make a difference. I also know, to use another cliché, that many hands, make light work so I’d urge Alister to reconsider his stance and come into our big tent and start p*****g out.

Last week I chaired a ‘Thought Leaders’ event at the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) in London where I interviewed Tom Foremski who became the first major journalist to quit mainstream media to make a living from blogging when he left the Financial Times to found Silicon Valley Watcher.

The event did leave me with some optimism that corporate media – that is companies paying real journalists to do real reporting – might be one future for quality journalism. Where I wasn’t so optimistic was where the next generation of quality journalists will come from. The traditional training ground was local newspapers and their decline mean opportunities for that crucial early learning are becoming rare. Some see the plethora of blogs and websites covering every conceivable subject area as being the alternative. I’m not convinced as they don’t have the seasoned old hacks who can teach the tricks of the trade. And I don’t mean fiddling expenses or hacking phones, but the old journalistic craft of knowing how to sniff out the truth in a story. How to check and double check the sources and facts. How to write well (and it’s not being pedantic to say that means good grammar, doesn’t need perfect grammar).

We explored a wide range of topics including content, corporate media, ethics, reputation, SEO, ‘Every Company is a Media Company’ and ‘brand journalism’ (we both hate the term).

As I was chairing the event and interviewing Tom I didn’t take any notes or record the conversation. However, I’ve captured some of the best tweets in Storify. If the embed doesn’t work for you then you can see it on the Storify site here.

I’ve got a few new corporate communications, PR and social media speaking engagements coming up over the next few months. I’ll also shortly be announcing dates for a series of two day online PR and corporate communications strategy master classes to be held in London in early July, Mumbai (India) in late July and Houston (Texas) in mid August. I’ve also got dates for social media master classes in Brussels in May and June. Contact me if you’re interested in attending any of these master classes and I can tell you how to register.

CIPR Thought Leaders | Can ‘corporate media’ support serious journalism. Can it win a Pulitzer?
Wednesday 8 May 2013, London

I’m speaking alongside Tom Foremski at a Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) Thought Leader expert briefing that asks (and tries to answer) provocative questions such as what’s the role of corporate media, will the the rise of corporate media serve society or hinder it, can corporate media become the new funding model for serious journalism and can corporate media win a Pulitzer?

Master class on Online PR
22 May 2013, Tbilisi, Georgia

In May I’m a guest of Marketing House Georgia and will deliver a one day Online PR master class in Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital. The course is designed for Presidents, Vice Presidents, Directors and Heads of:

Corporate Communications, Public Relations, Corporate Affairs, External Communications, Public Affairs, Government Relations, Internal Communications, Stakeholder Relations, Investor and Analyst Relations

I’ll also be delivering a second one day online reputation management course for CEOs and senior government officials.

Cutting Edge Marketing and PR International Conference
19-21 June 2013, London

The Cutting Edge Marketing and PR International Conference is a three day conference and series of master class workshops featuring speakers from the BBC, Microsoft, Amazon, Edelman and Trans-Arabian Creative Communications (TRACCS). I’m delivering a keynote presentation about ‘Global online communications: how to tackle the global vs. local challenge’ on Friday, June 21.

CIPR Annual Social Media Conference
11 July, London

The annual social media conference of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations will be based on the contents of the forthcoming Share This Too book. I’m chairing a Professional Practice Panel on ‘Putting the social into CSR’ and will be joined by two prominent experts on corporates social responsibility who will present short case studies and answer questions.

I spent yesterday at the European Parliament in Brussels running a training session for MEPs and their staff about Wikipedia and best practice. Most of what I said was based on the CIPR’s Wikipedia Best Practice guidelines that we produced last year in co-operation with Wikimedia and I had a small hand in helping to create.

On the Eurostar home I discovered that the training I delivered might already be out of date as yet another PR and Wikipedia ‘scandal’ had erupted this time about BP’s Wikipedia page. However, this time it appears that the ‘guilty’ parties probably aren’t BP’s PR team who appear to have followed all the best practice, but the online ‘chattering classes’ and some Wikipedians who’ve taken offence at PRs at a ‘big, bad’ corporate following Wikipedia’s own guidance.

Basically the story is that Arturo Silva, a member of BP’s corporate communications team in Houston, created the Arturo at BP Wikipedia user account and used it to interact with the Wikipedia community in order to improve the BP Wikipedia page.

His user profile is fairly comprehensive, explains what the account is for and makes it clear he will only contribute to BP’s Talk page:

“Welcome to my user page. I have established this account to help improve BP-related articles in line with Wikipedia standards and guidelines. In the interest of full transparency, I chose “Arturo at BP” as my username so that my affiliation with BP is abundantly clear to all parties I may interact with on Wikipedia. Per WP:ORGNAME, I believe that this username is appropriate, and I should point out that I will be the only person to use this account.

Out of respect for guidelines on conflict of interest and the importance of a neutral point of view, and in recognition of the ongoing debate regarding companies’ involvement on Wikipedia, I will only be editing Talk pages and will not make any edits to encyclopedia articles. My primary goal in being active on Wikipedia through this account is to improve the overall quality of BP-related articles in line with Wikipedia guidelines.

Any delays in responding to inquiries are due to my other roles and responsibilities at BP which take up a significant amount of my time, so I appreciate your patience with me. I do look forward to working with other editors, and welcome any questions you may have on my Talk page.”

Most of this is inline with Wikipedia’s own guidelines and the Chartered Institute of Public Relations Wikipedia Best Practice Guide that was created last year by the CIPR’s Social Media Panel in conjunction with ‘Wikipedians’ and Wikimedia.

I’d have recommended that the user profile stated absolutely that he worked for BP’s corporate communications team and there is question mark over if the company name should have been included in the user name, but apart from that it is all pretty good.

Arturo Silva then used his ‘userspace’ on this account to draft improvements to the BP page which he then pointed to on the BP talk page. He wrote everything from a neutral point of view and importantly always provided credible third party references for everything he wrote. This is precisely what is recommended in the CIPR guidelines and the idea is that this information is then checked by independent ‘Wikipedians’ and eventually incorporated into the actual Wikipedia user page by those independent third party editors.

Where it appears to have gone wrong is that despite Wikipedia’s commitment to a ‘neutral point of view’ the reality is somewhat different. The CIPR guidelines state that the definition of a neutral point of view is:

“All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopaedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias. Fundamentally, where there is a contentious issue associated with a topic, Wikipedia content should be a good reference for the debate. In a few words, neutrality means this: report the debate, don’t take part in it.”

The problem is that people don’t agree what “representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias” actually means. However, for some Wikipedians, and some member of the social media chattering classes, big business is always suspect and they would prefer for it not to be included as a ‘significant view’. It’s fine for an environmental activist to actually edit the page (as long as they don’t actually work for Greenpeace), but not for a ‘big, bad’ company to follow Wikipedia’s own guidelines.

On reflection I think my training yesterday is still valid as I caveated the CIPR’s Wikipedia Best Practice guidelines with the advise that it was always best to err on the side of caution. There are some brilliant, sensible people who devote hours of valuable time to editing and improving Wikipedia. But, as in any community, there is also a minority (who are always the most vocal) who aren’t reasonable and want their personal micro-view of the world to be inflicted on everyone.

It’s that minority you need to be careful of and reflect in your dealings with Wikipedia which is why I advised “Just because you’re allowed to do something, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea”.

Entries have just opened for the UK Social Media Awards 2013 which are now in their fourth year having previously been known as the Some Comms Awards. I’ve been a judge since the start and am pleased to say that I’m judging again this year alongside some great people including: PRCA chair Sally Costerton; Frank PR chair Graham Goodkind; Paul Fabretti, head of social media for O2 Telefonica and Stephen Waddington, European director of digital and social media for Ketchum.

The UK Social Media Awards are particularly special for me for as well as the usual ‘Best Use of’… Twitter, Facebook, social media in a crisis, community engagement etc type awards there is a very important one.

The Mark Hanson Award honours my former colleague and good friend who we tragically lost in 2011. It recognises the “brightest and most promising social media communicator under 30 years old”. This award is free to enter and you can self-nominate. So if you’re under 30 and doing great things then please don’t be bashful and put your name forward. If you know someone who is eligible please make sure they enter as too many folk are typically British and too reserved to put their names forward.

The awards are sponsored by PR Moment and supported by both the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) and the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA).

This viral video digital public affairs campaign from the Campaign for Equal Marriage was the winner of last year’s Best Viral Campaign and the overall Grand Prix prize.

On Wednesday May 8 I’m looking forward to speaking at a special event with Tom Foremski looking at ‘Can corporate media support serious journalism?’

The session is at the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) head office and sponsored by content sharing technology provider PressPage which has posted a social media news release:

Can ‘corporate social media’ support serious journalism?

As everyone now has access to an online printing press that can potentially reach tens of millions of people, corporate media -the next step up from brand journalism- is becoming a force to be reckoned with.

PressPage, the leading provider of content sharing technology, and the CIPR are co-hosting a session on May 8 in which Tom Foremski and Stuart Bruce will explore the role and possibilities of corporate media.

As traditional media outlets shrink, corporations are stepping up their own media creation efforts. Some are starting to produce serious journalism.

During this Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) hosted session, Tom Foremski and Stuart Bruce will explore four important questions that are facing so many communications departments today:

• What’s the role of corporate media?
• Will the rise of corporate media serve society, or hinder it?
• Could corporate media become the new funding model for serious journalism?
• Could corporate media win a Pulitzer?

Interested in joining this CIPR event? Register here.

“Back in 2008, Tom’s initial ideas about the digital press release was a main inspiration for the PressPage founders. It is really exciting to see how his research and ideas are evolving towards corporate media,” said Bart Verhulst, Co-founder and CEO of PressPage.

“Stuart Bruce is the éminence grise of online newsroom technology. Having Tom’s ideas on corporate media translated into practical implementation is an exciting idea,” said Roel Cozijnsen, PressPage’s General Manager UK

About Tom Foremski

Tom Foremski is the founder and Editor of the popular and top-ranked news site Silicon Valley Watcher, reporting on the business and culture of innovation.

In May 2004, Tom became the first journalist to leave a major newspaper, the Financial Times, to make a living as a full-time journalist blogger. Tom has been reporting on Silicon Valley and the U.S. tech industry since 1984. His current focus is on the convergence of media and technology—the fuel for a new era for Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley has become Media Valley, and this is affecting businesses worldwide

Foremski is also the originator of the ‘Every Company is Media Company‘ concept and actively researches the role and possibilities of ‘corporate media’.

About Stuart Bruce

Stuart Bruce MCIPR is an international trainer and consultant specialising in digital corporate communications, online PR, digital public affairs and social media for private sector and government clients in the UK, Europe and the Middle East. He is a part-time lecturer to post-graduate and under-graduate students at Leeds Metropolitan University and one of the authors of Share This: The Social Media Handbook for PR Professionals.

He is a CIPR national council member and a founder member of its social media panel. He is regularly listed in PRWeek’s Power Book of the UK’s top 1% of most influential PR people and is also a frequent speaker at international PR and communications conferences. Stuart was one of the world’s first PR bloggers and has been writing stuartbruce.biz for almost 10 years.

About PressPage

PressPage offers a social media release and newsroom platform to PR agencies that can be easily branded and seamlessly integrated into the websites of an agency’s clients. The platform gives PR agencies the opportunity to create, manage and track rich multi-media (press) messages with direct integration to and from social media platforms.

PressPage partners with PR agencies, providing them with the technology to make the most of the content they develop for the brands they work with. The secure technology, enables agencies to deliver a newsroom for their clients without needing access to other parts of the website. As well as integrating with social media platforms PressPage’s technology also enables agencies to share content with clients for approval before it is published and to make changes in real time. The agency is able manage multiple client sites through a single portal while limiting access rights to those who need them. It also has the ability to collect data from users and deliver measurement.

PressPage has partnered with leading PR agencies worldwide who have integrated it into their offer for small clients through to multinationals. PressPage is also a preferred supplier of the CIPR (Chartered Institute of Public Relations) and a partner of IPRA (International Public Relations Association)

This blog post started as a comment on Stephen ‘Wadds’ Waddington’s thought-provoking article about ‘The public relations industry’s confidence problem’, but it was so thought-provoking the comment rapidly became too long.

His central thesis is that public relations is too introspective and needs to have more confidence of the role it plays in the broader economy. I’d go further and say public relations doesn’t just play a significant role in the economy, but also in politics and society/social. The first three of the PEST analysis, which are all being changed by technology.

If advertising and digital agencies don’t eat PR’s lunch, then management consultants might

Wadds says there is a “turf war taking place between advertising, public relations and digital”. Another war that Wadds hints at, but doesn’t mention, is when he talks of “earns the place that it deserves as a management discipline” is with management consultants. Public relations professionals are not the only people to recognise that public relations should be a serious business discipline and that means we’re also competing with the big global management consultancies.

I think a major reason for public relations’ confidence problem is its identity problem. Public relations practitioners aren’t even sure and can’t agree on what it is we actually do. Worrying how we define ourselves seems introspective, but it’s hard to be confident about who you are if you don’t know yourself. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that others do ‘define’ public relations, usually incorrectly in narrow and derogatory ways. Too many public relations practitioners don’t do our business any favours by perpetuating the myths about what PR really is.

PR is not just part of marketing

If we are to be seen as a true management discipline as Wadds asserts then we can’t allow ourselves to be defined as mere publicists or as simply part of marketing. Public relations and marketing are totally different disciplines and the confusion arises because both will often use some of the same tactics. It’s quite legitimate for public relations to use paid media. It’s not even new, I did it 20 years ago with full-page display advertisements in trade press across the world, as part of a corporate restructuring.

Part of the challenge we have as public relations professionals is that we don’t start off with the same budgets or even ‘share of mind’ within clients as some of our competitor disciplines do. Advertising and digital agencies typically have bigger budgets so can afford to experiment. Using a small percentage of their existing spend they can try something new to see if it works in this time of massive change in society and media. In contrast you’d need a bigger percentage of most public relations budgets which means you don’t have enough left for the tried and trusted. Therefore the leviathan advertising agencies can ironically be more agile than the theoretically smaller more nimble public relations consultancies.

Wadds’s example of a retail brand working with a peer analytics firm such as Klout, Kred or PeerIndex to identify and target online influencers could be done by an advertising agency simply pulling one or two TV slots to find the budget. A PR agency might need to significantly reduce the time it spends working with influential journalists in order to spend that budget on working with the new influencers.

The challenge from management consultants is that their consultancy day rate frequently dwarfs the day rate of a public relations consultancy. This in turn means they pay bigger salaries and get better people. That’s not to criticise public relations people, but the fact is that many of the best do it because they enjoy it. They are bright enough people that if they’d entered a better paid profession such as management consultancy, law or accountancy then they’d earn a lot more. They chose public relations because they enjoy it. But this makes it hard for the public relations profession to attract the brightest and best graduates.

Is PR too introspective?

Wadds claims that the public relations industry is too introspective because it is obsessed with “inward focussed issues such as whether it is a profession and the issue of measurement”.

So what’s the answer? I think Wadd’s blog post perhaps starts to provide some of them. He’s right we need to win the professionalism debate through action. Despite being a Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) member for my whole career I didn’t complete its continuous professional development scheme until 2012. That’s wrong and I know I should become a chartered practitioner, but I’m not afraid to admit that the time involved still makes me hesitate. As a newly elected CIPR council member I feel obligated to at least complete CPD, but really I should also complete the accreditation to become a CIPR Chartered Practitioner.

He says that solid work is now being done by organisations such as AMEC to improve measurement and evaluation. This is one area where public relations could be more confident. Public relations is perceived as not being very good at measurement and evaluation. The fact is that we’re getting a lot better. The dirty little secret of much of the advertising and digital agency world is that they might be better at measuring stuff, but much of their evaluation is just as flawed as that used for public relations. Public relations needs to start being confident about what it can measure and evaluate, rather than worrying about what it can’t.

“The debate about who owns social media is flawed…”

… says Stephen as “The future will be owned by the practitioners that define it”. And he’s right. It’s also a sterile debate as social media doesn’t necessarily need to be owned by anyone. The fact is that social media needs to be used by human resources, legal, customer services, marketing, IT, public relations et al. As well as using social media itself one of the main roles of public relations is to ensure that others within the organisation don’t abuse or use social media badly, which will inevitably lead to reputational damage.

Public relations therefore has a dual role with social media. Firstly to use if effectively itself. Secondly, to coordinate and lead its use by others. In most companies and organisations public relations has a unique 360 degree perspective because reputational issues can arise from anywhere. That makes PR uniquely placed to lead on something that also has a 360 degree impact on the company or organisation. The danger is that there are disciplines out there, such as marketing and advertising, who might want to ‘own it’ and those disciplines are far more narrowly focused so while capable of doing brilliant work won’t necessarily sufficiently get the wider implications. That’s what we need to guard against.

It’s time for public relations professionals to take the advice of Mark Borkowski and Stephen Waddington and “find our swagger.”

The UK’s Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) had an extremely successful 2012 and has published an infographic detailing some of its achievements.

On a personal note I was elected to the CIPR’s national governing council to serve a three year term.

The CIPR has also issued a news release with some of the key statistics:

2012: A year of participation for the CIPR

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) has today announced membership and professional development participatory figures for 2012.

2012 headlines

Membership:

• Total membership of the CIPR up 13% year-on-year
• Membership admissions up 14%
• Paying members up 4% (non-students)
• Student membership up 259%

Professional development:

• Continuous Professional Development (CPD) completions up 29%
• Qualifications enrolments up 30%
• Training workshop delegates up 26%

Events and awards:

• Internal communications conference delegates up 49%
• Social media conference delegates up 7%
• Excellence Awards entries up 0.5%
• Excellence Awards tickets sold up 12%

Web and social:

• CIPR website unique visitors up 21%
• CIPR Social Media Panel and Wiley published ‘Share This: Social Media Handbook for Public Relations Professionals’ sold 2247 copies

Jane Wilson MCIPR, CIPR CEO said: “Against the challenging background of the current economic climate, the institute has delivered some impressive increases in participation across the board.

2012 can be marked out as a year of increased professional development activity for the CIPR and our members. The year started with the implementation of significant changes to our member grades, opening up membership of the institute to a wider pool, reflecting the modern world in which we operate, and moving away from the time-served model of old.

The strategic decision to grant students on the CIPR’s 43 approved courses free membership, for the length of their studies, has proved to be a popular one. Coupled with the 4% increase in paying members, our year-end membership number has now passed the 10,000 mark.

The increase in enrolments on CIPR qualifications and training workshops indicate that the public relations industry is now placing professional development at the very top of the agenda. Developments made toward the back of 2012 in refreshing our training workshop programme, and extended this offering beyond London, ensures that our members and the wider public relations community have access to the highest standard of training available.

These increases in participation are testament to the hard work and commitment of the CIPR staff and the hundreds of CIPR member volunteers who commit their time to the Institute. I welcome their continued support, and look forward to continuing this progress in 2013.”

- ENDS -

Notes to Editors

About CIPR
Founded in 1948, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations is the professional body for public relations practitioners in the UK. With 10,000 members involved in all aspects of public relations, it is the largest body of its type in Europe. The CIPR advances the public relations profession in the UK by making its members accountable through a code of conduct, developing policies, representing its members and raising standards through education and training.

Further information

These statistics are not end of year financial results and by and large are related to year-on-year increase in participation.

• These year-on-year statistics compare 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012 performance with 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 performance
• Paying are members are those at Associate, Affiliate, Global Affiliate, Member, Fellow and Honorary Fellow levels
• CIPR Accredited Practitioner status is awarded to CIPR members who have completed two continuous years of CPD by accumulating 60 CPD points per year or have completed a CIPR diploma (CIPR Diploma, Public Affairs Diploma, Internal Communications Diploma, Crisis Comms Diploma) or have completed a CIPR recognised Masters degree and are taking part in CPD
• Qualifications statistics include:
  • CIPR Diploma
  • CIPR Advanced Certificate
  • CIPR Crisis Communication (Response) Diploma
  • CIPR Internal Communications Certificate
  • CIPR Internal Communications Diploma
  • CIPR Public Affairs Diploma
• Conference, training and qualifications figures are for paying delegates only. Complimentary places have not been counted in this figure.

In December I took part in a fascinating panel debate on ‘Defining ethics for today’s communicators’ at the European Association of Communication Directors‘ forum in Amsterdam. It was facilitated by Mike Cooper, editor-in-chief of the Holland Herald and the other panellists were Andre Manning, the vice president and global head of external communications at Royal Philips; Nicole Gorfer, the head of communications at Roche Pharma AG Germany; and Professor Rosa Chun, Chair of Global Leadership and Responsibility at University College Dublin.

Much of the discussion focused on the importance of ethical codes of conduct for communications professionals. From the audience Philippe Borremans, chief social media officer and CSR coordinator at Van Marcke Group, asked how many of those in the room had signed the Code of Athens (PDF). Not a lot was the answer. Although personally I don’t believe that means people don’t subscribe to it. My own hand stayed down as I haven’t signed the Code of Athens, mainly because I had no idea you needed to. If Phillipe had asked if I was aware of it and abided by its principles then I could have given an unequivocal yes.

Many of the principles of the Code of Athens has since been incorporated into the codes of conducts of many of the world’s professional public relations and corporate communications organisations.  I joined the Chartered Institute of Public Relations in 1988 when I was still a communications student (although it hadn’t yet achieved chartered status) and have abided by its professional code of conduct throughout my entire career.

One of the points that I made was that codes of conduct were pointless unless they were enforced with sufficient vigour. Despite the existence of codes PR and communications people still have a dubious reputation and are constantly maligned in the media with phrases like “PR spin” common parlance. The danger for ethical public relations and communications professionals is that we are too often confused with the often far more high profile unethical communicators and publicists.

We must demonstrate that membership of professional bodies means something. This means rigorously enforcing codes of conduct and sanctions against those who transgress them. At the moment we still have professional PR organisations whose members appear to transgress yet ‘internal investigations’ clear them of wrong doing. The processes need to be far more transparent. The UK PRCA’s investigations into potential malpractice by Bell Pottinger simply reported that “there was no credible evidence of wrong-doing”. The actual report (Word) was slightly more critical, but couldn’t be termed an in-depth investigation.

However, stricter enforcement isn’t the whole answer as most of the ‘PR’ practitioners engaging in unethical behaviour are the 80% who aren’t members of a professional organisation. The Chartered Institute of Public Relations needs to be more vigorous in promoting chartered status and help clients and employers understand that the benefits of employing a PR professional who is a member of a chartered institute are the same as employing a chartered accountant rather than a bookkeeper.

In a recent PRmoment article the CIPR’s director of policy and communications Phil Morgan said:

“The CIPR’s Royal Charter recognises that professional standards in public relations are in the public interest. The status of public relations depends on gaining respect for the quality of the work we deliver and for the integrity with which it is carried out. Vital to this is the accountability provided through codes of conduct such as the one that all CIPR members make a commitment to when they join.

“Ethics within such codes are expressed in general terms – honesty, integrity, transparency, confidence and competence. These concepts need to be applied in a rapidly changing world and both professionals and the public need access to resources that keep them relevant. In key areas, especially digital and social, where the profession is changing continuously and expectations around disclosure and transparency are increasing, everyone needs access to best practice and resources that explains the central ethical concepts in terms of their day-to-day work.”

During the EACD debate I also made the point that indications from the UK were that unless the public relations profession put its own house in order then government might step in and do it by regulation. The Leveson Inquiry and subsequent report into press standards shows that there is appetite for statutory regulation. Likewise the public affairs and lobbying profession is facing statutory legislation to force it to publish a proper register of clients. In both instances it is because the industries have failed to provide adequate self-regulation.

Today unethical behaviour is more likely to be exposed

Another issue that I raised is that today there is a new dimension to ethics. If we believe that public relations is about reputation then fundamentally it must be about behaviour. There has always been a divide between what is right and wrong, although where that divide lies is always open for debate and indeed might change in different circumstances. What is different today is that in the past you had a greater chance of ‘getting away’ with bad behaviour. There was a limited number of people scrutinising you and even more limited number capable of exposing your bad behaviour. Bluntly you had a chance of getting away with it.

The rise of social media and citizen journalism mean that companies and organisations are under far greater scrutiny than they ever have been. Every customer, every employee, every member of the community has the power to record what they see and to publish it in an instant. Your media statements can be analysed by experts – be they bloggers, academics, campaigners or enthusiasts – who will identify every error and have the capacity to expose your ‘spin’.

So even if you don’t subscribe to the notion of doing the ‘right’ thing because it is right you need to behave better, just because you’ll get caught and be exposed if you don’t.

Some of the panel discussion also focused on the difference between personal/professional ethics and corporate ethics. In the same PRmoment article Professor Tom Watson of Bournemouth University gives examples of how personal professional ethics in public relations are frequently violated:

“Every year, a few students coming back from placements with stories of how their PR employers had misled clients, asked them to write fake customer reviews on websites, switched account teams after winning pitches, charge high for untrained internship staff and falsified evaluation data.“

He adds:

“The route to ethical public relations lies primarily in the honesty and moral compass of individuals, especially those who are leaders and managers of PR operations; not in a heavier, quasi-judicial system.”

Professor Watson is right we should be able to rely on “the honesty and moral compass of individuals”, but we can’t make the assumption that it will always automatically kick in. There needs to be far greater emphasis in PR education and training on teaching the fundamentals of ethics and illustrated with practical examples and ‘moral maze’ type exercises. This should start with PR undergraduate and post graduate courses, but also be part of the membership induction when someone first joins a professional body like the CIPR. Philippe’s idea of signing the Code of Athens is a good one and perhaps we should look at getting new members to physically sign the CIPR code of conduct.

The debate about public relations ethics isn’t going to go away and I believe will continue to increase in importance and is an issue that the PR profession needs to take far more seriously.