Since announcing the History of Public Relations special edition of the Journal of Communication Management, there has been a very enthusiastic response from around the world. Already several articles have been submitted along with abstracts. The main response has been from the United States but there have been enquiries and abstracts from the UK, Turkey, Israel, Switzerland, Spain, Australia, South Africa and Nigeria. More are expected.

Proposed topics include the early history of public relations, key personalities in public relations’ evolution, the development of PR theory and concepts over time, the professionalisation of public relations in various countries and the formation of industry organisations.

The deadline for submissions is Friday May 16 but there is still time if you are keen to contribute. For more information about the special edition, the Call for Papers can be found at  http://www.emeraldinsight.com/info/journals/jcom/history_cfp.jsp. A range of topics is proposed but potential contributors can suggest others.

If the special edition proves to be a success, I hope to convince JCOM’s publisher to schedule another one. Also, there is the opportunity to develop articles and other research into an edited book on PR History.

Jim Nail of the US media evaluation provider TNS is arguing against the use of the three evaluation categories - Output , Out-take and Outcome - as being too generalised and non-specific. Here’s the link to his blog, http://blog.cymfony.com/2007/10/outputs-and-out.html. These terms were developed by Walter Lindenmann in the early 1990s as a neat categorisation and have been promoted through many books and industry/academic papers.

Output is the production of the public relations effort (messages sent). This is the Presentation stage and may include measurement of press releases and other communication methods

Out-takeor Out-growth is the understanding and retention of messages by publics. It looks at the attention, comprehension and acceptance.

Outcome is the effect of the PR effort on attitudes, opinions and behaviours. This measures the actions of the target groups.

There is also a more recent Out-measure, called Outflow that considers the build of value by improvements to reputation and the creation of organisational/stakeholder relations.

This group of Out-measures is convenient and, as far as I can see, widely accepted. What’s your view?

I’ve been asked by one of the leading public relations academic journals as to whether I would guest edit an edition on the history of public relations. This is an emerging area of public relations scholarship and so I’m making what we is a ”Call before the Call for Papers” to test the level of interest.

In the UK, Jacquie L’Etang has written a pathfinding history of the discipline and a Social History of PR was written in the US in the mid-1990s. As well, there are occasional articles in Public Relations Review. In most general public relations texts, there is a chapter or section on history of public relations, which reaches back to ancient times to show that empires and religions used strategies and tactics, mainly events, to communicate and engage support. This is followed by a gallop over the centuries until the end of the 19th century. In general, the beginning of PR as a defined discipline is either set at the turn of the 20th century or after the first world war. My view is that there was developed practice in what we now call public relations a long time before the supposed start date. It’s a rich and exciting topic to explore with the potential for journal articles, books of readings and histories.

In thinking about the journal special edition, Here is an initial list of topics:

- Public relations in history, before it became a named or defined discipline

- Archival sources for the history of public relations

- The evolution of public relations in nations or in parts of government or industry

- Key personalities or events that shaped the formation of public relations as a discipline

- Key books or articles that have influenced public relations

- The evolution of public relations theory over time

- Influences on public relations practice, such as in government, industry and consultancy

- The formation of industry and professional bodies and their impact, over time, on public relations practice and education

- The evolution of public relations education, training and continuing professional education

- How technology has shaped public relations practice and theory

These are just some initial thoughts and I would welcome feedback on these as well as suggestions of other themes. My own interest has been sparked by reading over many years and recent research into the application of sophisticated public relations strategy and tactics in 10th century England (before William the Conqueror arrived in 1066). My paper on the formation of the cult of St Swithun will appear shortly in the Winter 2007 edition of Public Relations Review.

Please contact me via comments on this blog or directly to twatson@bournemouth.ac.uk.  

When I sought views on research priorities for research into public relations via DummySpit earlier in the year, the leading topic was “the impact of technology on public relations”. Quite fortuitously, Prof John Pavlik of Rutgers University in the US has written a paper on this topic, ‘Mapping the Consequences of Technology on Public Relations’ which has just been published by the Institute for Public Relations at www.instituteforpr.org/research. Prof Pavlik, who some 20 years ago wrote the excellent “Public relations: What research tells” demonstrates his renowned clarity in writing for both academic and practitioner audiences in this very readable paper.

In it, he reviews four areas of impact and implications of technology:

1) How PR practitioners do their work

2) The content or messages developed and delivered in PR

3) Organisational structure, culture and management

4) Relationships between or among organisations and their publics

The paper looks at current research outcomes, case studies, anecdotal evidence and interviews. He also recommends a research agenda for further investigation. It’s important to note that the paper’s view is far wider than media relations which often dominates discussion of online PR. 

I’d recommend the paper to all those interested in the future of public relations and will be using it with my PR students at Bournemouth University.

Here is a scenario for a campaign on human rights issues. The opponents claim serial oppression of an indigenous population in the developing world and provide evidence from observers in the field. Their campaign is marshaled by a determined, highly moral individual who is supported by church people, legislators and, increasingly, the media.

The campaign’s target, led by another national’s leader, fights back by questioning the motives of the campaign, the accuracy of the information and the economic impact should it have succeeded. Both use the media to make claim and counter-claim. The opponents make special use of church networks to roll out their campaign on both sides of the Atlantic. Both proponents and opponents lobby governments to make or reject laws on the economic exploitation.  

The proponents on two occasions set up “independent commissions” to investigate and report on the situation. The results of these commissions are challenged by the opponents as only limited sections of reports appear.  These are characteristics of modern human rights campaigns like those fought over environmental issues in the Amazon, the claims of “sweat shop” manufacturing in the developing world and of health issues such as tobacco and obesity.

But this scenario is taken from more than a century ago when the King of Belgium, Leopold II, was opening up and exploiting what we know now as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) for rubber and ivory. His opponents were led by a feisty British journalist, E.D. Morel, who later became an MP by defeating Winston Churchill in the 1920s. Morel was not the first to be appalled by the exploitation of the Congolese or the first to campaign against it, but he was the first to mount and sustain an effective campaign using methods that we would consider part of modern democratic debate. His campaign brought major changes to the government of the Congo and some relief to its people.

The oppression of the Congolese, of whom 10 million are thought to have died during the period that Leopold II reigned, is a genocide that was supported by commercial and national interests and by the communication resources that they used and abused. The whole story is told by Adam Hochshild, in King Leopold’s Ghost published by Pan Book*. It is a book that should be read by practitioners, academics and students as it shows how public relations and corporate communication techniques can support evil practices, as well as effectively oppose them.

Over the past century, there is plenty of evidence that unethical practitioners in exploitation, lobbying and communication are as rife now as they were at the turn of the 19^th century. As Adam Hochshild notes, “multinational have also been in on the take [in the DRC]” (p. 316). By 2004, there had been an estimated four million deaths and 2 million refugees in the DRC because of fighting in the east of the country and in neighbouring Rwanda and Burundi. He concludes, “Tragically, no powerful outside constituency, like Morel’s Congo reformers, exists to lobby for measure that would help” (p. 317). 

* Hochshild, A. (2006) King Leopold’s Ghost (2^nd edition). London: Pan Books. Also published by Houghton Mifflin in the US. ISBN 0-330-44198-1

One of the claims being made for new media is that it gives greater access for ordinary folks to express their views and debate politics. The current US election prologue is being put forward as the first real “Internet Election”, although this claim was made for the 2004 campaign.

In his ‘Read Me First’ column in the Guardian this week, Seth Finkelstein, takes a swipe at the limited access to citizens in the recent CNN YouTube debates with a column headed, New media is just another way to pull the same old tricks. Finkelstein argues that “new media bring new media manipulation and new media exploitation” and that the method of selecting YouTube postings by a gatekeeper was the same as “contests where the winner gets a cameo appearance on a TV show”.

He goes on criticise the process further with, “ss is typical of user-generated content, despite all the hype about empowering citizens, the individual is utterly powerless, except to try to please and serve the interests of the gatekeeper and thereby obtain some attention (but not remuneration).”

There is a raft of issues that arise from this critique: would the candidates have participated in an open-access debate where they didn’t know what issues were likely to be? That’s highly unlikely, although it might make edgy broadcasting. Would broadcasters, like CNN which staged this cross-media event, give up their control and their standards of presentation? Again, highly unlikely.

So Finkelstein’s hope that a true shift in power could have occurred was forlorn before the start of the process because the broadcaster as gatekeeper has too much to defend and he recognises this in his sign-off comment: “… we should never mistake a change in media style for any advance of citizens’ power in politics”.

New media has also brought unforeseen problems for two of the UK best known brands - Vodafone (mobule phones) and First Direct (online banking) which bought packages of online advertising space on Facebook and ended up on a page giving information about the far-right British National Party (BNP). As the Guardian reports, “the move may affect other advertisers on Facebook by highlighting a current lack of control over where the multimillion page network places their bookings”. The report highlights the problem that there is little control over where where advertisements appear.

Ironically, The Guardian’s online version of the report includes a Vodafone click-through advertisement across the top of the story (or it did when this blog was being written) which again shows the problems that advertisers have when seeking associative coverage of their organisation.

Perhaps these two instances of new media problems - lack of access to a range of voices and damaging associations - make a collateral case for well-researched, targeted public relations activity. The public relations practitioner as an intermediary can have a valuable and ethical role to play in promoting genuine debate.

Having run a public relations consultancy for 18 years before switching to academic life, I know how hard it is to balance management pressures while offering top-quality advice and driving the business’s growth.

One UK firm that I admired in the 1990s was Countrywide Communications (now Porter Novelli’s UK operation) which was led by Peter Hehir. They always seemed to be doing the right things as managers; the business grew continuously; they swept up numerous industry awards; their client list was top class – and they had started the business outside London in the Oxfordshire town of Banbury.

Working alongside Peter Hehir as MD of Countrywide’s UK business was Neil Backwith. He has recently distilled his knowledge of 22 years in the consultancy front line into a new book, Managing professional communications agencies – How to double your profitability.

This book should be on the bookshelves of every communications agency manager (not just PR) around the world as it is a very accessible guide to all the elements that make the well-run consultancy business prosper. Backwith divides the book into two sections – managing the firm and its people, and managing client profitability. In the first section, he looks at short and long-term planning, capacity management and utilization, payment systems, key financial ratios and the role of the accountant. The second section looks at new business and maintaining profitability during growth (not an easy task), contract issues, procurement processes of potential clients, deal negotiation and client satisfaction.

The need for this book was illustrated by Peter Hehir at a Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) conference in London in the late 1990s. In a discussion on the need for better management of consultancies, Peter Hehir asked the audience to take a break and respond to a brief for a relatively simple media relations project. When all the answers were collated, the prices proposed ranged from £1,000 to £10,000. This range caused consternation. How could an audience representing many of the best consultancies (small, medium and international) in the UK have a 900% variation in pricing? Peter’s answer was that, self-evidently, most of us were managing our business too loosely and pricing by guess work.

Managing professional communications agencies – How to double your profitability addresses these issues and helps take the guesswork out of agency and consultancy management. The content is sound advice. None of it is in management-speak or heavily conceptualized, although the writing style is overly chatty. Whether you will “double your profitability” as the book’s title claims is questionable but you will have far greater control of your business if you take heed of its advice. Linked with the disciplines of the PRCA’s Consultancy Management Standard, the lessons from this book will make the business stronger – and give greater time to developing creative solutions for client briefs.

Backwith, N.A. (2007) Managing professional communications agencies – How to double your profitability. London: Public Relations Consultants Association.

Price £29.99. ISBN: 978 0 9517397 1 6. Available from the PRCA, Willow House, Willow Place, London SW1P 1JH

After three months of discussion, the Study of the Priorities for Public Relations Research (PR Priorities Study - final report) has been completed. The initial piloting was undertaken on DummySpit in April and led to the setting of 26 public relations topics. These were sent to a Delphi study panel (of experts) in five continents covering top academics, leading practitioners and the CEOs of PR industry bodies. After three rounds of intensive email debate, the Top Ten PR research topics are:

1) Public relations’ role in contributing to strategic decision-making, strategy development and realisation, and organisational functioning

2) The value that public relations creates for organisations through building social capital, managing key relationships and realising organisational advantage

3) The measurement and evaluation of public relations, both offline and online

4) Public relations as a fundamental management function

5) Professional skills in public relations; analysis of the industry’s need for education

6) Research into standards of performance among PR professionals; the licensing of practitioners

7) Management of corporate reputation; measurement of reputation

Ethics in public relations

9) Integration of public relations with other communication functions; the scope of public relations practice; discipline boundaries

10) Management of relationships

Just outside the top ranked priorities are:

11) Client/employer understanding of public relations

12) The impact of technology on public relations practice and theory.

This report is the first completed international study on public relations research priorities (using a Delphi panel) since the mid-1990s and gives valuable insight into the ‘front and centre’ public relations research areas around the world.

The results will allow academics and practitioners to work closely together to improve understanding of public relations and its most effective and ethical use. It is a benchmark that all research plans and funding can be judged by for relevance and importance.

David Phillips has just posted a podcast on his site about ROI and the measurement of online PR. It follows on from earlier discussion on DummySpit about “pullability” as a measurement of the associative referencing of online communication. From this discussion, the concept of “out-pull” as a measure was proposed. It has received a very positive reception from practitioners and academics.

Is ROI a relevant measure? Listen to David’s views. As he says, analysis shows that the measurement of online PR and communications is not an easy task and not given to financially-based measures.

On a helpful new blog at the Institute for Public Relations, Sean Williams of Goodyear in the US describes low cost methods of judging the effectiveness of the tyre maker’s internal communications, especially on its intranet. 

They have used internal discussion groups to quickly evaluate the corporate intranet and a daily poll question of key topics. It has built dialogue with staff, with around 150 joining the intranet discussion groups and 800 a day taking part in the poll. Some 450 a day check the poll results. 

The outcomes of the Intranet review have been very constructive – “we did get opinions that differed significantly from those we brought to the exercise. Our intranet is better for the experience”, says Sean. 

Although he says the polling methods aren’t scientific, they are a good example of how “little and often” can build up a period-on-period picture of communications. By using internal resources and a mindset set that allows modification, it can be as valuable as formal research methods. 

In Paul Noble and my book, Evaluating Public Relations, we recognised that many communicators want to research but are stumped by cost or lack of knowledge. That’s why we have shown how media evaluation can be set up using a simple Excel-based spreadsheet or even a paper-based clerical method. The information obtained immediately assists media relations activity. 

Doing evaluation is not hard and it gives immediate benefits – Congratulations to Sean for sharing Goodyear’s approach.