Click image to see actual member satisfaction with PRSA.
It took a bit of haggling, but PRSA posted this week its member-satisfaction survey results for 2011. After PRSA CEO and Chair Rosanna Fiske, APR blogged about the results, an obvious question was raised by myself and Alice Irvan, APR, PRC: Where are the actual results?
We wanted to see for ourselves what the member survey results were, not PRSA’s interpretation of them. By posting about the survey results and not THE survey results, a major strategic error was in the making, one that would likely incite its regular critic(s).
While PRSA has been cagey about certain issues affecting the society, it was relatively quick to respond transparently in this case. Particularly helpful was Arthur Yann, APR, vice president of public relations for PRSA. This is important because, ironically, one of the “top learnings” presented on slide 4 of the results PRSA posted says, “PRSA needs to continue to focus on access to information….”
I would modify this to read: “PRSA needs to continue to improve access to information….” When PRSA decided to post the survey results in a slideshow format, the take-home messages were already written into the presentation.
One needs to look closely at what the data show, however. My particular interest was chapter versus national preferences. Since chapters will soon be voting on a potential dues increase from the national level, and I know for a fact many, if not most, of my local peers find more value in local offerings than what comes out of national, it is important to know whether this is a consistent trend across the Society.
It is. Read more below.
Data indicate PRSA members have the strongest interest in local chapters, followed next by interest in national. Interest in district-level activities is relatively low. For example, slide 6 shows understanding of local chapters ranks at 80%, versus 65% for the national level. How well do members understand what districts do? Only 26%.*
This is important for discussions about dues increases. It is clear that location plays a strong role in member and non-member knowledge of PRSA.
Moreover, satisfaction with membership (slide 7) is ranked at 56% for PRSA members while lapsed members rank satisfaction at only 39%. Slide 16 breaks down these data even further. Anywhere from 40 to 62 percent of members are satisfied with membership, depending on where they are time-wise in their careers.
But those willing to recommend a local chapter? The percentage range goes up: the lowest percentage is 47% while the highest is 70%. .
Fiske writes: “PRSA members are also incredibly satisfied with the value of their PRSA membership.” Not true. The results show there is a noted difference in attitude between local and national PRSA offerings. Member satisfaction (slide 7) in general is 56% for members. Calling this “incredibly satisfied” is disingenuous.
It is also, to me, somewhat startling. I want to know why. The text above the chart on slide 7 only indicates that, “despite low incidence of satisfaction, nearly one-fifth of lapsed members are likely to renew their membership.”
Another selective interpretation. This also means that four-fifths are not likely to renew their membership. Again: Why?
More to the point, the way these results are crafted and presented is not exactly academic in nature, but rather self-affirming. The summaries of the survey results as presented show feedback on what PRSA already does, not what it could be doing. In short, the results appear to have the aim of maintaining the status quo of PRSA national.
A more important question looms: In the face of a relatively large dues increase from the national level, why should members pay more to PRSA national when local offerings appear more relevant to their careers?
*It is important to note that because of how the results are presented, more than one interpretation can be made. (Information is missing from the slideshow. PRSA said it only posted the top findings for competitive reasons.) I post my analysis to provide a perspective I believe is lacking in PRSA’s versions of the results. What do you think? Please comment below or on my Facebook page.
Jill
5 months ago
Thanks for brining this issue to light Bob. As always, good work!
Alice Irvan
5 months ago
Thanks for agreeing with me, Bob. I’m going to take a look at the survey results. I appreciate Rosanna’s stepping up to the task and presenting results. I’m going to post the Marketing Research Association’s guidelines as to what SHOULD be incuded in public release of survey results. As a researcher and a pr professional, I cringe at what some pr folks do in the way of releasing “survey data.”
I’ll also write Rosanna a thank you note.
Alice Irvan, APR, PRC
5 months ago
http://www.marketingresearch.org/public-reporting-of-research
The link listed above it to our Marketing Research Association website that suggests guidelines for public release of survey data.
As a long-time PRSA member and a MRA member, I try to encourage PRSA folks to adhere to MRA or other research organization standards in handling research. As both a pr practitioner and a researcher, I would have advised our PRSA president that it was not in anyone’s best interest to use the “glowing” language about the survey results in her blog. It is important to interpret results accurately and to report accurately to members. Yes, some propriatary information should not be released. However, the “spin” that was used in the blog about the results was probably applied with good intentions without thinking through the repercussions of the spin.
From a pr perspective, it would have been wiser to release results to members with an unbaised interpretation. At least our PRSA leader saw the wisdom of releasing results. I will take a look at the results and write a comparison with the blog interpretation.
Jack O'Dwyer
5 months ago
Congratulations on showing how PRSA is spinning the results of its survey. Rosanna Fiske should present herself in person to the PR trade press.
Blog: (Sept. 1, 2011, http://www.odwyerpr.com)
PRSA Leaders Refuse to Answer Questions—O’Dwyer
PRSA Leaders Won’t Say What Will Be Cut
PR Society of America leaders and staff refused on two teleconferences yesterday to say what products or services will be cut if the Assembly doesn’t pass a $30 dues hike.
Chair Rosanna Fiske said one thing is certain—there won’t be any free webinars if the hike doesn’t pass.
She had announced two weeks ago that if members took one $150 webinar a month the value would total $1,800 over a year’s time.
Fiske, dues hike committee member Tony D’Angelo, COO “Blackball” Bill Murray (his voice constantly breaking up due to spasmodic dysphonia http://www.dysphonia.org/) and CFO Phil Bonaventura all refused to go into details of what might be cut.
Mark McClennan, Northeast district nominee for the board, reiterated the demand for specifics in a posting today in the PRS Assembly delegate e-group.
“Give us an idea of a few things that are potentially on the chopping block,” he pleaded.
Amazing News Comes Out
The a.m. call was produced these notable items:
–PRS sends two e-mails a day to members in the form of news bulletins and pitches for webinars/seminars but could not bring itself to announce the proposed dues increase in an e-mail. Members have been complaining in LinkedIn and in the e-group that they never heard of the increase.
–D’Angelo said the annual “Leadership Rally” for
presidents-elect and chairs of sections and districts costs $140,000 but that cutting it would be “the wrong thing to do” since the attendees “rave about it.” He said: “I personally am against dropping it.” Murray had also praised the LR in a previous teleconference, saying “research” showed it was popular and it was a “discrete” budget item.
Editor’s View: it’s open bribery of those who vote in the Assembly, has not produced a scrap of written advice for anyone in 12 years, and who wouldn’t like a free weekend in New York each June?
–Fiske, again describing the proposed destruction of the 2011 Assembly by breaking it up into dozens of small groups for much of the afternoon, blamed the delegates themselves for suggesting this (quoting a survey of the
delegates).
–Fiske subjected all calls on the two teleconferences to censorship. Participants had to post their questions on an accompanying website which were then read off by a PRS staffer. There were only about a half dozen questions.
–D’Angelo repeatedly referred to the “reserves” of PRS when VP-Art Yann has said that the proper term is “net assets.” The Society has no “reserves” (only banks have that). PRS’s “net assets” are fake because more than $2.2 million of unearned dues is included in that figure in defiance of FASB Section 958-605-21-1. PRS has a couple of months of earned money on which to operate—very thin ice. It had a $312,797 operating loss in the second quarter, a loss hidden as part of the first half report. Journalists are barred from seeing such financial reports.
Alice-in-Wonderland Quality in Discussions
Leader/staff/member discussions have an “Alice-in-Wonderland” quality because a whole herd of elephants-in-the-room is never mentioned.
The APRs who run PRS wasted $2.9 million on the program from 1986-2002 and have turned their backs on millions of easy income by only having one national conference in New York in 23 years with another one yet to be scheduled. The 2004 New York conference drew a record 4,000. Large savings result from a New York location because there is no need for “advance trips” by staffers nor any need for travel/hotel/meals for the 35 or more staffers who attend a conference.
PRS could save $285,349 by sending Tactics and Strategist by PDF (printing cost $171,218 and postage $141,131 in 2010). Ten years of such savings would be $2.8 million.
O’Dwyer’s Charged with “Misinformation”
Fiske, at the end of the a.m. call, said there have been “several questions” from delegates about “communications from a New York newsletter publisher.”
She offered to set the record straight if delegates would call her privately. “There are several pieces of misinformation there,” she said.
We challenge Fiske or any delegate to refute any of the facts or opinions this site has carried about the Society’s finances and its quest of a dues hike.
More than 300 O’Dwyer e-mails have been sent to the presidents of the 110 chapters and only two presidents have demanded we stop sending them.
One is Sarah Lamm, president of the North Carolina chapter, which has about 230 members.
Lamm, who is leaving the employ of Capstrat, Raleigh, because her husband has a new out-of-state job, e-mailed us “Unsubscribe” as though we were sending her SPAM. We have polled the 11-member board of the chapter to see if the other directors agree. This should not be a unilateral decision by Lamm. President-elect of the chapter is Meghan Woodlief, who left Capstrat a couple of months ago, said CEO Ken Eudy, whose firm billed $11.8M in 2010.http://www.capstrat.com/#/people/ken-eudy/
Eudy’s bio on the firm’s website notes his extensive journalistic background—six years as chief political writer for The Charlotte Observer, the state’s biggest newspaper, and six years as TV news correspondent with stations in Raleigh and Charlotte.
We have asked Eudy to call Fiske and Murray and read them the riot act—stop all this information blocking, evasion of members and false financial reporting. He should tell Fiske to stop running from the members and face chapter memberships in person starting with the biggest city chapter—New York. The “war” on New York is destroying the Society.
All e-mails to the presidents are personally addressed and do not constitute SPAM.
It appears that most of the chapter presidents are reading our reports and finding out a lot of things they would never get from PRS leadership or staff. We hope the presidents will forward the blogs to their entire memberships. Presidents we have talked to usually say they will bring it before the board. The democratic thing to do would be to pass it onto the entire membership.
Murray’s New Contract Is Dodged
Another unworldly aspect of the dues discussion is that no one ever asks about the new three-year contract of Murray.
He and the board have shown contempt for the membership by not revealing the terms of the contract. Even the terms of his 2010-11 contract remain secret since PRS has yet to file its 2010 IRS Form 990 and refuses to say when it will be filed. Initial deadline was May 15. PRS kept this document from the 2009 and 2010 Assemblies. Murray’s pay/fringes were $373,000 in 2009. Bonaventura got $221K and VP-PR Art Yann, $137K.
Kennedy, Others Had SD
PRS members have said we should not mention Murray’s affliction with spasmodic dysphonia, pointing out that Senator Robert F. Kennedy had this problem and nevertheless had a successful career.
Others with it, they said, were singer Fred Lavery who had to retire because of it, and Dutch radio presenter Sjors Frohlich who also quit his job because of it.
The condition is incurable and tends to get worse.
Handicapped people should be hired but not if their handicap interferes with performance of their jobs.
Murray, carrying the title of president and getting well paid for it, should be out on the circuit preaching the Society’s “Business Case for PR.” We have no record of public appearances by Murray. He has not addressed the New York chapter in his first 4.5 years in office.
The Society itself should be setting an example of openness, democracy, and fairness. Instead, it is doing the opposite.
Advertising/PR have a low and even declining image with the public, according to the latest Gallup poll. The antics at PRS are not helping this situation.
Rosanna Fiske
5 months ago
Bob, thanks for looking at the research and offering your thoughts.
Research may be interpreted in a variety of ways, so I always appreciate hearing the perspectives of others as to what the data show. I do disagree, though, that my interpretation was “disingenuous” and stand by my statement that the majority of PRSA members are quite satisfied with the organization overall. When 70 percent of members surveyed have an “extremely satisfied” impression of PRSA overall — and when that number rises at a time when we’ve cut $1.5 million from our budget — I’d say we’re doing pretty well.
As far as the national vs. local argument, the fact is that there is only one PRSA, and it has a presence nationally and locally. Products and services used by Chapter members every day are maintained by PRSA national, from our Code of Ethics to our website to our informational resources to our daily, monthly and quarterly publications. PRSA’s professional development programs are used by Chapters as revenue generators via “brown-bag” lunch programs. Chapter officers attend training at PRSA headquarters, which helps them learn about managing the operations and finances of their Chapters effectively. We provide the Chapters with other financial and operational support, such as speaker stipends and membership renewal processing.
What the data didn’t show about the relationship between national and local — but would be interesting to know — is just how many Chapter members understand which member benefits are not being delivered by their Chapters. We know for a fact that this issue exists, so the problem may be more one of perception than reality.
For example, many members have said to me that they thought our award-winning Strategist and Tactics publications, which the research shows to be among our most-valued member benefits, were published by their Chapter.
Here’s another nuance to the data. Our membership, like our profession, is amazingly diverse in terms of the industries and organizational settings we serve, and the job duties we’re asked to perform. This is why PRSA offers such a wide array of benefits and products and services. Not all members take advantage of every one of our programs, so not all members see value in all of them. It’s just the nature of our organization.
I disagree with other aspects of your analysis, but I do agree as noted above that some of these questions beg further investigation via qualitative research. (Having carried out a series of focus groups across the country as part of the Strategic Planning process last year, we didn’t have budget for additional qualitative research this year. Those focus groups, however, did provide us with a richness of opinions and insights, as well as context, for many of the questions we asked in our quantitative research.)
Bob, let’s agree on one thing: Any research needs greater context in order to synthesize the data. Providing our different perspectives here is part of that process. And even though we come at it from different viewpoints, I hope we can have a respectful and productive discussion as members of a community working together to strengthen our profession, and one that doesn’t devolve into overly harsh judgments and name-calling.
Bob
5 months ago
Alice, thank you for the link. I hope PRSA adopts in the future an ethical protocol for release of its findings rather than the spin applied this year.
Jack, please keep your comments germane to the post, or they will not be approved for posting.
Rosanna, thank you for your thoughtful response.
I don’t believe that you are standing by your statement because you’ve now changed your original language from “incredibly satisfied” to “quite satisfied.” Neither qualifier is supported by the data as presented. Yes, the data can be interpreted differently. What PRSA chose not to highlight, though, is that only 56% of members are satisfied. This is among other potentially informative points brought out by the data. “Satisfaction with PRSA” is ranked at about 50%, or a range of 47% to 64%, across member-career points (slide 19). No objective researcher would, with a straight face, infer this to be “incredible” satisfaction.
What is less subject to dispute is statistical significance. Since PRSA didn’t release what percentage of the population completed the survey (the actual response rate), the results can only be considered anecdotal and not representative of the Society – including my comments about the results. So again, to make the inference that the majority are “incredibly satisfied” is incredibly generous.
More to the point, however, is that PRSA, as an organization of presumed transparency and one that presumably adopts a principle of the free flow of information, has struggled with transparency and the free flow of information. Just today, a representative of national essentially asked me to remove a comment posted above from this blog and appeared to lay judgment on my credibility for approving the comment.
It is striking to me that the free flow of information apparently only means to some the information that we like. Basic, uncomfortable First Amendment principles should be a reminder: bizarre, unpleasant, unpopular and even factually incorrect ideas have a place in the marketplace of ideas. Dealing with those is a huge part of my job as a PR professional, so I am sympathetic to the wish for context and accuracy. That said, stifling any information is generally an invitation for increased scrutiny and criticism. That’s not what I am about.
Since I appreciate much of the work PRSA has accomplished under your leadership, I hope you can have influence on the climate of denial and secrecy – as evidenced by PRSA’s initial refusal to release the survey results – that at times seems to infect some of what comes out of PRSA national. To me, it continues to set a poor example of what PR is capable of representing.
Again, your thoughtful response is appreciated.
b
Arthur Yann
5 months ago
Bob, since you allude to my email to you earlier today, I thought I’d provide the exact content here and let your readers decide the veracity of what’s implied in your description:
Hi Bob,
While I agree with the freedom of expression, it seems to me that Jack O’Dwyer’s comment on your blog post about PRSA’s survey results is WAY off topic and should be removed. I don’t see how linking to a published diatribe full if misleading information and outright lies about PRSA does anything to further the discussion about the results of our research.
What’s more, I think it’s a poor reflection on you personally that you would accommodate an opinion like this on your blog:
“PRS members have said we should not mention Murray’s affliction with spasmodic dysphonia, pointing out that Senator Robert F. Kennedy had this problem and nevertheless had a successful career.”
“Handicapped people should be hired but not if their handicap interferes with performance of their jobs.”
What’s even more egregious is that this comes from a man who trades on public sympathy for his own handicaps, and who has repeatedly published outright lies about PRSA’s accommodation of his loss of hearing at our National Assembly.
Just my $0.02, but I hope you’ll consider this request and do what’s right.
So as you rail against PRSA for what you perceive to be a struggle with transparency and the free flow of information, I think you might be well served by pointing the looking glass inward and examining your own values as they apply to blog etiquette, civil discourse and journalistic accuracy, balance and ethics.
Re-printing a blatant and unwarranted smear against someone with a personal handicap might have a place in your marketplace of ideas, but it sure doesn’t have a place in mine.
Bob
5 months ago
Arthur,
Just so it’s clear, the last two paragraphs of your response above have been added that were not in your original email. I think that should be apparent so readers are aware of “exact content” when they consider the veracity of claims.
While I appreciate your response, I think it’s quite easy to criticize one aspect of this discussion — and trying to turn it around to be about me and my credibility — while ignoring what are likely the more salient of issues about PRSA. I certainly welcome your thoughts about those issues raised.
b
Arthur Yann
5 months ago
Bob, thanks for delineating between the original content of my email and the paragraphs added for the purpose of my post. While I never meant to imply that those paragraphs were part of my original email to you, I fail to see how that affects the discussion.
Because, as long as you continue to entertain offensive, discriminatory, possibly libelous and certainly non-germane comments on your blog posts (and I do find it ironic that you will post Mr. O’Dwyer’s wholly non-germane comment this time, but not again … “wink wink”), criticism of it is fair game. I’d also point out that it was you who made such criticism germane to the discussion by making public the contents of my private correspondence to you (but, we’ll leave the ethics of that for another time.)
Also, will you kindly point out to me exactly where I question your credibility (vs., say, your editorial judgment)? These are two very different things, and for you to interchange them in the way you have smacks of, dare I say, spin.
As far as addressing the “salient issues about PRSA,” and your own selective interpretation of our data — something that appears to be good for the goose (and possibly page views), but not for the gander — I think Ms. Fiske’s comment represents the organizational view quite nicely.
Bob
5 months ago
Arthur, only a few responses, since I guess I have not be clear:
“While I never meant to imply that those paragraphs were part of my original email to you, I fail to see how that affects the discussion.”
It wasn’t implied. It was stated outright that you were providing “exact content.” You then added two paragraphs. It affects the discussion because this kind of interpretation of what is, is what gets PRSA into trouble.
“…will you kindly point out to me exactly where I question your credibility (vs., say, your editorial judgment)?”
Sure. Here: “I think it’s a poor reflection on you personally that you would accommodate an opinion like this on your blog.” And here: “I think you might be well served by pointing the looking glass inward and examining your own values as they apply to blog etiquette, civil discourse and journalistic accuracy, balance and ethics.” And, by implication of how I moderate comments on this blog, here: “I do find it ironic that you will post Mr. O’Dwyer’s wholly non-germane comment this time, but not again … ‘wink wink’…” And, lastly, here: “…and your own selective interpretation of our data…”
It’s these kinds of (reductio ad absurdum) statements that, in my opinion, continue to support my points that PRSA struggles with basic PR.
b
Bill Sledzik
5 months ago
Thanks for writing this post, Bob, and sorry I’m late catching up to it. I don’t follow PRSA communications all that closely anymore.
Count me among the 20% of lapsed PRSA members who is (or at least, was) considering a return to the organization. I’m a 27-year member, APR and PRSA Fellow, who also lapsed into deep dissatisfaction over the value of my national dues.
Like you, I’m troubled by the “spin” in PRSA original release, but also encouraged by the quick release of the data on request. Why the entire report wasn’t posted to the website immediately is a mystery. Or is it?
While it’s true that Mr. O’Dwyer went off topic (Come on, folks, this is NOT unusual for Jack), you’ve given his opposition the chance to make their case. The defensiveness and bullying coming from our friends at PRSA has me rethinking my return to membership.
As always, you present a strong case against the spin that’s damaged the credibility of this profession since its inception. How long will it take before we walk the talk?
Bob
5 months ago
Bill,
Thanks for you comments, as always. It should be noted that PRSA initially refused to post the survey results, citing competitive reasons. It wasn’t until I pressed for them that they were, the next day, suddenly made available online.
Bob