There’s no question that PR associations aim to help their members—from professional development to generating helpful research to producing key events.
This member focus is practiced by all of the major communications associations. But what about these organizations projecting their efforts on the PR profession as a whole? How much effort are the major PR associations putting into lobbying and advocating for PR practitioners?
PR News decided to take a look at the scope of formal lobbying and other forms of advocacy by major PR bodies. What we found, in a nutshell, is little real lobbying mixed with some advocacy efforts.
NO LEGISLATIVE AGENDA?
Lobbying in the real sense of the word on behalf of PR seems to have peaked eight years ago with the Nike vs. Kasky Supreme Court case, when five PR groups ( PRSA, Public Affairs Council, Institute for PR, Arthur Page Society and the Council of PR Firms) banded together to support Nike on a free speech issue (it was ultimately settled among the parties).
PR association spokespeople contacted by PR News can’t recall another issue since that has so galvanized the profession into action. One reason for this, says Arthur Yann, the Public Relations Society of America’s (PRSA) VP of communications, is that communications is a non-regulated industry with broad First Amendment protections. “We don’t have a legislative agenda to discuss,” says Yann.
But Larry Parnell, associate professor and director of the Master’s in Strategic PR program at George Washington University (and a longtime PRSA committee participant) begs to differ. He thinks the lack of formal lobbying is a missed opportunity. “There are issues that affect PR, such as free speech, privacy and financial that could be regularly discussed with legislators, whether there’s a bill in Congress, a court case, or not,” says Parnell.
ALTERNATIVE ADVOCACY
Yet most PR organizations concentrate on other forms of advocacy to advance the PR agenda. “We use our members as our eyes and ears,” says Matt Shaw, senior VP, director of communication at the Council of Public Relations Firms. In lieu of full-time lobbying, the council formed an Issues Monitoring Group among its membership, comprised of mostly public affairs practitioners based in the Washington, D.C. area. “They help us inform our agency members of key issues coming down the pike,” says Shaw.
A few times a year, the group issues a report covering a variety of key issues faced by agencies. A sampling of the most recent report on the council Web site includes articles on health reform, sales tax audits and the Federal Trade Commission’s edicts on social media.
‘TRICKY ISSUE’
Meanwhile, at the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC), Julie Freeman, president of the IABC, says if any issue that affected PR should arise, “we would most likely mobilize a grassroots-type campaign effort around it.”
Lobbying? “That’s a tricky issue,” says Freeman. “In the formal sense, we don’t have anyone in D.C. because there are not regular issues that effect the practice of communications.” What the IABC does do, says Freeman, is advocate for the profession in an indirect way, “because it’s self-serving to issue position papers on why PR is important.”
Freeman cites three examples of this type of advocacy:
• An “Excel” awards program that honors a business leader, who is not an IABC member, at the group’s annual conference. Leaders from Best Buy and Marriott Hotels have been feted.
• An effort to write a guide for social responsibility with the International Standards Organization (ISO). “One component is the communicator’s role in the CSR process,” says Freeman.
• Equipping IABC members with the best practices for executing effective programs and demonstrating their value to upper management also shows the value of communications, says Freeman.
Freeman admits that the IABC struggles with PR advocacy issues. “There’s politics involved in that, as we have members from many countries with different views,” says Freeman.
Similarly, being an advocate for the profession, particularly through education of its members, is a goal of the Institute for PR(IPR), says its president and CEO, Robert Grupp.
A former registered lobbyist himself, Grupp steers IPR toward informal lobbying for the legitimacy and credibility of the PR field. “The task is to be out there on behalf of the profession, defining it for people and talking about the transparent nature of PR,” says Grupp.
CASE FOR LOBBYING
GW’s Parnell believes there is room for more formal lobbying efforts. “Coming from the Washington world, everyone does lobbying in some form or another,” says Parnell. “But PR has never done that, and I think it’s an oversight, especially with new digital platforms that bring up a whole lot of regulatory issues.” (See the sidebar for key issues in 2011.)
Organizations like the PRSA, says Parnell, shouldn’t shy away from Capitol Hill. In fact, the PRSA is holding its annual conference in October in Washington, D.C. It’s the perfect opportunity to reach out to legislators, says Parnell. “Most organizations have a ‘lobby day,’ where members can meet with their legislators and discuss issues that are relevant to them.”
The PRSA will not be doing any of the sort, says Yann. “We don’t have any meetings planned with legislators,” Yann says. Instead, PRSA will have a number of public affairs education sessions at the conference. “We do track emerging legal, regulatory and legislative issues that affect other industries and could, by extension, be applied to the practice of public relations,” says Yann, who cites the changes recently proposed by the FTC to its “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising” as an example. Yann adds that the PRSA’s tracking of key issues are highlighted on the its Web site.
Should PR organizations be doing more to lobby for the profession? Let us know in our discussion group on PR Peeps (http://prpeeps.ning.com/). PRN
CONTACT:
Arthur Yann, [email protected]; Larry Parnell, [email protected], Matt Shaw, [email protected]; Julie Freeman, [email protected].
PR-Related Regulatory Issues To Track In 2011
Joseph Lewczak and Michael Lasky, partners at law firm Davis & Gilbert LLP, which specializes in the PR and marketing communications industry, came up with the top regulatory issues that PR executives might face next year. They include:
1. Continued enforcement of the endorsement and testimonial guidelines: Issued in October 2009 by the FTC, the edicts apply to all marketing activities and to work done by PR firms. “Make sure social media training and monitoring are firmly in place,” says Lasky. (Detailed information about these guidelines can be accessed on the Davis & Gilbert Web site, www.dglaw.com.)
2. Behavioral marketing: Push for continued self-regulation in this area and participate in the self-regulatory process to avoid burdensome regulation.
3. Product placement: The FCC is still considering whether additional disclosures may be necessary.
4. Agency intellectual property: “Watch for the continued trend for agencies to push to retain rights to ideas and creative work rejected by the client, and consideration to having the client license the work, rather than to have the agency transfer outright ownership to the client,” says Lasky.
Hi Scott,
I enjoyed reading this article, but it seems a bit indifferent to what organizations such as PRSA, the Council of PR Firms and IABC actually are doing to move the industry forward.
Say what you will about formal lobbying (which none of the industry organizations you mention sees as an effective use of organizational resources). PRSA chooses instead to advocate for greater acceptance, adoption and understanding of public relations services through its recently introduced industry advocacy campaign, “The Business Case for Public Relations.†We also lend PRSA’s voice to the discussion of pressing business and societal issues and events where we can demonstrate the strategic and financial value of public relations. The financial cost of Tiger Woods’ efforts to protect his reputation is one such example.
PRSA also advocates for greater racial and ethnic diversity in the public relations profession through its Diversity and Multicultural Communications Committee and Diversity Today blog, and for ethical standards of behavior among public relations professionals through its Board of Ethics & Professional Standards and Code of Ethics.
Over the past few years, manifestations of this program have included:
* Testifying before Congress against the “Truth in Broadcasting Act of 2005,†which would have increased regulation of video news releases (VNRs) in the wake of the Armstrong Williams scandal. Armstrong used his news program to promote the Department of Education – a paying client – without disclosing the exchange of value.
* Speaking out in the wake of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) press conference, at which agency staff members posed as journalists. This resulted in PRSA being invited by FEMA to conduct communications ethics training for its personnel.
* Counseling our members and the broader public relations industry against the use of disingenuous editorial content, including fake product reviews, paid blogging and hired Tweeters, as well as anonymous Internet postings, front groups, fake employees and other unethical practices.
* Defending the industry in the wake of high-profile criticism from “CBS News Sunday Morning,†“The Rachel Maddow Show,†The New York Times, USA Today and other media outlets.
* Issuing calls for federal communications policies that would avert conflict of loyalty allegations, such as those made in a memoir by former Bush White House press secretary Scott McClellan, and for candidates for elective office to run clean and fair campaigns that eschew the use of innuendo, surrogate messaging and character attacks.
We also track emerging legal, regulatory and legislative issues that affect other industries and could, by extension, be applied to the practice of public relations. The changes recently proposed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to its “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising†are a good example. When that proposal was initially put forward, a number of widely circulated press reports misinterpreted the potential impact of those changes; through our own research, however, we were able to make sense of the intended changes and offer our members guidance. We also submitted a point of view on behalf of the public relations during the public comment period for those changes.
Some of the other issues that PRSA currently is monitoring on behalf of its members and the broader public relations industry include:
* Draft legislation giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement powers to oversee online privacy policies and requiring a consumer opt-out for information shared by social media channels.
* The FTC’s potential extension of its regulation on paid blogging to employees who post positive comments about their employer or its products or services.
* Potential regulation of broadband frequencies by the federal government.
* “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act,†which would establish an executive-branch Internet “kill switch†for potential national security threats.
I hope this presents a more rounded view of our efforts for PRNews readers.
Arthur Yann is vice president, public relations, for PRSA.
Arthur–Thanks for keeping us in the loop on the PRSA’s activities. I’m sure we’ll be covering some of these in the near future.