Fact, fiction, weirdness

This is not a rhetorical question: Why is it that seemingly every time the Public Relations Society of America attempts to defend itself, it ends up leaving an even worse impression of the public relations profession?

One rule of reputation or crisis management is that if you’re in a hole, you really should stop digging it deeper. PRSA doesn’t go that far, but it certainly wields a nice shovel.

I took some heat in my ever forth-coming book for this section, posted here, where I took PRSA to task for what I considered to be responding to a non-issue, doing so poorly and thereby potentially creating a larger problem. Nevertheless, I kept the section in the book (to be released this fall, thanks for asking). I’m glad I did.

I majorly respect that PRSA is taking a stand against attacks against the profession. Major kudos. It registered for me last year, and has been a constant under its current president, Michael Cherenson. He correctly makes the point that defending the profession is indeed advocating for the profession:

“Public relations professionals are obligated to strengthen the public’s trust in what we do as a profession.”

My problem is the tact the responses take. This example is basically on a good track until the end when Cherenson concludes:

“As for Mr. Brown’s use of ‘Hitler, Goebbels, and the Nazi propaganda machine’ as a metaphor for the public relations industry, I would hasten to add that Hitler was a book author, as well.”

And the point of this statement is… what, exactly? As I interpret it — hopefully incorrectly — Cherenson is saying the PR comparison to Hitler is unfair but since Hitler is a book author and the book being reviewed in the USA Today about PR is also written by a book author that perhaps Hitler and the book’s author therefore have something in common? Or maybe he means that because Hitler was a book author and so too is the author of the book about the PR industry, perhaps book writing is inherently an exercise in propaganda? Or maybe he means that anybody can be a book author? Or maybe all book authors are Nazis?

In any case, the statement is ill-considered.

Cherenson chimes in again recently, this time in a blog post about the APR process and an unnamed

“head of a well-respected New York firm (that) delivered a blistering critique of the Accredited in Public Relations (APR) credential on his blog. Somewhat curiously, a similar outburst appeared on his partner’s blog a day later.”

What’s curious is that PRSA sent official notice to its members last year saying that it would no longer interact with this individual, presumably one Jack O’Dwyer, a long-term thorn in the side of PRSA, who PRSA claims is bullying and harassing toward members.

Cherenson’s response is strange and strays again into non-issues. The topic at hand is the APR process, accrediting public relations professionals as a mark of continued education and dedication to ethical practice. The title of Cherenson’s post: “APR Critics: Down With Education!”

I can’t find a single instance – in O’Dwyer’s post or in this post – where people have discouraged further education. O’Dwyer criticizes the APR process, contrasts it with the Canadian APR process, which is called “far superior” and points out inconsistencies in the APR process.

To be fair, O’Dwyer comes off as wild-eyed and conspiracy-oriented at times (he claims “APR is a political party,” a major WTF?), and if what PRSA says about his behavior is true, bullying should not be tolerated.

The problem is when he makes an important claim or criticism and PRSA tosses out red herrings in defense, such as:

“We find it fascinating that the heads of a single big-city agency presume that their views are somehow defining for others.”

(Again) WTF?

Granted, Cherenson acknowledges problems in the profession but mocks critics and defends the profession with non-related points, such as:

“Thousands of APRs across America proudly display the APR mark — as they do their other qualifications — because it is one of their many accomplishments.”

This is self-serving hyperbole that is unrelated to the levied criticisms.

For the record, I had no formal training in PR when I received my APR. The APR process was important to me but not because I could add three more initials behind my name. The multiple choice test is of dubious validity, but the direct feedback from colleagues and other professionals when I presented by portfolio was immensely valuable. I recommend PR folks go through the APR process if for no other reason than to hone their skills, re-think what it is they are doing (and why) and gain important feedback.

That doesn’t inherently mean that APRs are somehow more accomplished, smarter, more ethical or better PR people. As the APR discussion was fleshed on Twitter yesterday, I received this response. The individual claims that PR is but a “biz strategy.” She’s an APR.

The point in all of this is that PRSA comes across as ill-equipped to handle its own reputation management. Rule number one in crisis management is that if you have done wrong, admit it, vow to improve and communicate that to affected publics. While what PRSA has done and is doing isn’t exactly wrong, it clearly violates many of the basic tenets of the profession, which O’Dwyer regularly likes to point out, such as being transparent and engaging in two-way communication.

Is PRSA improving? Undoubtedly, yes (check out PRSAY, as one example). At the same time, PRSA should also begin looking within and holding the profession and its professionals accountable for misdeeds too numerous to mention. Admitting that misdeeds occur in the first place might be a good place to start. Going off topic in defense just gives the offense more ammunition and fails to address the myriad problems that brought rise to the debate in the first place.

EDIT 08-03-09: I received information that PRSA’s Cherenson was actually referring in his post to Steve Cody of the agency Peppercorn, who originally posted about the APR topic. A subsequent post alluded to as “curious” by Cherenson was posted on the same blog by Ed Moed. I regret the assumption that PRSA’s Cherenson was referring to Jack O’Dwyer (who also had something to say on the matter recently); although, to be fair, in addition to PRSA’s struggle in responding appropriately to efforts in becoming transparent, we can also add into the mix the difficulty with something as simple as link-backs.