After a delay, http://historyofpr.com , the website for the First International History of Public Relations is being populated with information, resources and contacts. Have a look at it and pass the message on.

Also seek out the ‘historyofpr’ Twitter site and the History of Public Relations group on Linked-In

Our new visiting professor at the Bournemouth University Media School, Anthony Lilley of Magic Lantern productions, gave his inaugural lecture on the future of the media last night. It’s a complex and challenging outlook in which the ability to gain and hold attention will be paramount.

Here’s the podcast of the presentation, http://www.cemp.ac.uk/activities/inaugurallecture.php

Thanks to my colleague John Brissenden, the History of Public Relations conference website has been set up at http://historyofpr.com.

There’s also a History of PR Twitter connection at ‘historyofpr’ and a History of Public Relations group on Linked-In. Please join us.

The website site is still in development, so bear with us.

In Latvia, a stunt by a PR agency to create a fake meteorite crater goes wrong:

 http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Latvia-Meteorite-Was-PR-Stunt-Admits-Mobile-Phone-Firm-Tele2/Article/200910415420502?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15420502_Latvia_Meteorite_Was_PR_Stunt%2C_Admits_Mobile_Phone_Firm_Tele2

What an own-goal to enrage government and lose your client’s confidence and the contract, too!

I have just started a research project for the Institute for Public Relations, sponsored by Coca-Cola, on the skills and competencies needed for senior corporate communicators and PR advisors, looking five to 10 years ahead.

Here’s the URL to the Institute for Public Relations website on which I discuss current communication scenarios and the future needs for developing top communicators. http://www.instituteforpr.org/digest_entry/2015s_top_communicators_new_skills_and_expertise_required/ What’s your view on this?

We have just had a Media School debate on the topic of “is the BBC too big?”, [Debate on Is the BBC Too Big] with a full house of staff and students – and a lot of discussion. Here’s my contribution to the debate:

When I lived in Australia from 2003 to end of 2006, I was often asked what I most missed from the UK. My instinctive answer was definitely not the weather but definitely BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. For me it is the best news programme on radio or television or online in the world. It is newsy’; it’s agenda-setting; it has improved its business coverage a lot and it gets all the big names. You start the day fully informed.

For me, that is the real strength of the BBC – news-gathering and communication on a national and world-wide scale. It demonstrates that public broadcasting can be challenging to authority, it can be confident in its presentation and it can be immediate.

 But that’s not my view of the whole of the BBC. Before I give my proposal on what the shape of the Beeb could be, I’d like to look at other examples of public broadcasting and consider their strengths and weaknesses.

In the US, they have National Public Radio – NPR – which is intelligent, liberal in outlook and perennially ailing as it relies on charitable funds and personal donations to survive. Its magazine programme, All Things Considered, is a gem that I recommend to you. On television, the Public Broadcast Service – PBS – has the nightly News Hour with Jim Lehrer which has the highest trust ratings amongst audiences. NPR and PBS also have other highly rated programmes but they trail far behind the various commercial terrestrial, satellite and cable production houses on their ability to consistently produce programming that is equivalent to the BBC’s output. NPR also relies heavily on BBC news for its international coverage.

Australia has the Australian Broadcasting Commission – ABC – which is funded by the taxpayer and has radio, TV and online programmes. Its style of news reporting and presentation is close to BBC in being straight-forward and objective, although with a liberal tone. ABC has a wide range of its own programming but, compared with the BBC, it is less well resourced and probably under greater political pressure. The ABC TV broadcasts in a very competitive environment in all national and regional markets with three terrestrial competitors and Sky on satellite. In any state capital, there will be up to a dozen competitors battling over audience share. The ABC will have its national Radio 4-equivalent of Radio National, its local Radio 2-equivalent in the state capital, a national rolling news and parliament station, its Radio 3 equivalent called Classic FM. It rarely tops the audience ratings and Radio National usual scores around 4-5%.

So what’s my view of the BBC – It does news really well, some drama and comedy well, sport is still OK but has declined, and radio is a mixed bag with Radio 4 often excellent and local/regional radio dire. Channel 4 does investigative journalism and current affairs with greater acuity and timeliness, which is a good argument that alternative public broadcasting can deliver some beneficial results.

My view is that the BBC should be reviewed with my outcome being the equivalent of Waitrose’s Essentials range – a limited range of well-priced and good quality essential that are aimed much more tightly at the audience with less puffery and packaging.

To address some key questions set to us by our chair, Jon Wardle

1. Is the scale and scope of the BBC chilling? (As stated by James Murdoch): In radio, it is anti-competitive and, by creating at least seven national networks, BBC World Service and all of its awful regional radio, has reduced both creativity and competition to such as extent that commercial radio is a financial basket case. On television, I don’t see how BBC 3 and News 24 would survive in any other scenario. Why not run BBC World rolling news instead of News 24? They do the same job.

2. Mark Thompson has announced a review of all services…would you cut anything away…and if so what?  I would cut BBC 3, News 24, reduce the bloated BBC Online services and at least two or three radio networks. I closely follow motor racing but don’t see why the BBC paid £100m or more for Formula 1. There are sports and national events with much greater importance than F1. I’d also get rid of the BBC Trust which is both cheer leader and supposed ethical watchdog and does neither very well.

3. Should the licence fee be top sliced to support C4?  Yes, for news and current affairs, because C4 News/ITN, Dispatches and Cutting Edge are way better than Panorama and less pompous than Snooze Night.

4. What are the Tories likely to do if they get in? Do some of the above, but probably less than we think they will. I think their policies will be aimed at cutting BBC bureaucracy and overheads rather than giving Murdoch a platform. He’s doing OK by himself.

5. Is BBC Worldwide a good idea…should the BBC own the Lonely Planet for example? BBC Worldwide should be floated as an enterprise with a large minority shareholding being held by the BBC as a support to its income stream. The Lonely Planet deal was morally wrong and an abuse of the BBC brand and reputation

6. To what extent is the BBC meeting the remit set by Lord Reith to educate, inform and entertain? In many areas, it meets the Reithian remit but is using our money to knock out competitors. Less could be more!

In conclusion, I consider that the BBC is the best public service broadcaster in the world but it is too large and anti-competitive in its corporate behaviour.

I took part in the University of Georgia’s Grady College Connect conference by Skype yesterday. We were discussing the role of social media in communications by non-profit organisations. The consensus was that it plays a supportive role to main line communications by creating some forms of awareness but has little effect on generating funds or creating relationships. Indeed, some Twestival campaigns have failed badly on creating new income.

My presentation to the conference is attached. [Watson (2009) presentation to Grady College Connect Conference.] You may find other presentations and sessions on the Connect conference website.

The First International History of Public Relations Conference is to be held at Bournemouth University in England on July 8 and 9, 2010. The Conference was announced recently and already has had very positive indications that people and papers will be coming from afar afield as Australia, South Africa, Namibia, Germany, North America and the UK.

The Call for Papers  (below) is now being distributed and it offers a very wide range of PR history themes and the opportunities to present Research Papers, Working Papers and Posters.

CALL FOR PAPERS

THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL HISTORY OF PUBLIC RELATIONS CONFERENCE

 8-9 July 2010

Centre for Public Communication Research (CPCR)

The Media School, Bournemouth University

Poole, England

Academics, practitioners and research students are invited to submit competitive abstracts and papers for presentation at The First International History of Public Relations Conference.

This conference will be the first international opportunity for academic researchers, historians, interested practitioners and research students to meet, present papers and discuss this emerging area of research.

Full Papers – 3000 to 6000 words

Working Papers – 1500 to 3000 words

Posters

Papers and posters for presentation at the conference will be selected, after peer review, on the basis of abstracts, of no more than a single page length. Author details must be printed on a separate sheet and the author(s) should not be identified in the abstract.

Manuscripts of the selected papers are to be submitted using Harvard referencing and according to the Journal of Communication Management editorial style found at: http://info.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=jcom . The manuscript should be in MS WORD format, in 1.5 line spacing and 12 point font size.

Deadlines

Submission of abstracts: December 7, 2009

Acceptance notification (by email): January 18, 2010

Submission of selected papers: April 26, 2010

All accepted abstracts will be published in the conference programme, which will be available online. A selection of full papers will be published in a Special Issue of the Journal of Communication Management in late 2010.

Conference Themes

As this is the first international conference on the History of Public Relations, the range of conference themes is wide and those listed below are the starting point for consideration, rather than a finite list.

• Public relations in history before it became a named or defined discipline
• Alternative approaches to the history of public relations, e.g. on the basis of culture (personal networks and influence) or via definitions of public relations
• The evolving naming of the field from propaganda and press agentry to corporate communications
• The history of public relations and its developing or diverging relationships with other disciplines like marketing, HR, legal and corporate governance
• The evolution of public relations in nations or parts of government or industry
• Seminal personalities or events that shaped the formation of public relations as a discipline (This can also include challenges to the “Great Man” or “Great Woman” approach)
• Key books or articles (or series of both) that have influenced public relations
• The history of political public relations and lobbying
• The history of public relations education
• The evolution of public relations theory(ies) over time – from propaganda to dialogue; the history of schools of thinking in public relations
• Formative influences on public relations theory and practice, such as in or by government, industry or 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 development
• The impact of technology, over time, upon public relations practice and theory
• Archival sources for the history of public relations
• The theories and processes of researching the history of public relations
• Oral histories of public relations; the role of this methodology

Please send abstracts to Dr Tom Watson, Conference Chair, The Media School, Bournemouth University, email: prhistory@bournemouth.ac.uk

If you have used PR research and measurement extensively in one of your PR campaigns this past year, you should consider entering the Jack Felton Golden Ruler Award for Excellence in PR Measurement & Evaluation. 

Entries of all types are welcome – including research using social media!  The award recognises superb examples of research used to support public relations practice. Winners are feted at the Institute for Public Relations’ Summit on Measurement in October held at Portsmouth, NH, near Boston in the US, and it’s quite a big deal. But hurry!  Entries are due on Saturday, August 15. 

Here’s How to Enter, and see these examples of previous winners’ entries: Padilla Speer Beardsley’s Winning Entry 2007 or Shell’s Award Winning Entry 2008 for ideas – and there are more on the site. 

By the way, the Award was named for Jack Felton, who was formerly CEO of the Institute for PR, and instrumental in creating the Commission on PR Measurement & Evaluation.  He is highly respected and much loved throughout the industry worldwide.

I have been involved in discussion recently on the formation of an Evaluation Standard for government PR. It has brought together PR consultancies, evaluation providers and government communicators to seek consensus on the subject.

My role as the token academic has been to prepare discussion papers and facilitate discussion. To set the basis for discussion, I asked everyone to agree definitions for key metrics of PR evaluation such as Opportunities to See, Prominence of Mention, Reach, Tone, Effectiveness and Results. We used the IPR’s Dictionary of Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation, edited by Prof Don Stacks, for this. Despite its cross-Atlantic pedigree, everyone agreed with the definitions.

The reasoning behind this initiative is that government, in its many forms, is a major purchaser of media analysis from commercial suppliers. It wants a ‘level playing field’ of metrics so that comparisons can be made between campaigns and also between methods of communication. For advertising and direct marketing, it has a bank of common metrics used but, for PR, media evaluation suppliers provide different bases of analysis either via algorithms or ‘PR value’ calculations. The dreaded Advertising Value Equivalence is also used in some circumstances, which is an interesting concept suggesting that governmental communications is related to revenue generation. So it is a bit of a muddle.

The first stage of discussion has been positive and we await the next stage. So my question is what would you include in a set of standard PR evaluation benchmarks?

Have we already identified the key terms or should measurements like ‘volume of articles’, ‘event attendees’, ‘behaviour change metrics’ and ROI be included? There are many other factors that could be considered at Output, Out-Take or Outcome levels. Your views are welcomed!