Good news that the CIPR has joined the PRSA in their 'PR Defined' initiative - a global effort to modernise the definition of public relations. The initiative is valuable in terms of bringing together the views of practitioners on how we define PR, although settling on one global definition will be difficult  However, the fact that so many practitioners are coming together to debate and to reflect on public relations practice is a positive step forward. 

There have been some interesting contributions so far (check out the PRSA's PR Defined pages). CIPR member Philip Sheldrake has also put forward a suggested definition, which is also worth review, particularly for its focus on organisational objectives and recognition of the complexities of influence in today's online environment.

Personally, I think the CIPR’s definition reflects how PR is developing:

Public relations is the discipline which looks after reputation, with the aim of earning understanding and support and influencing opinion and behaviour. It is the planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics.

I like this definition as it references the following:

• Mutuality (“…to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics…”), reflecting authentic engagement with publics and the two-way symmetric model vs. one-way push messaging (social media being a driver for this)
• Reputation and influence (the value of reputation being a basis on which public relations investments are made)
• The ‘discipline’ of PR. I see this also as the processes, technologies and convergence of functions that mean PR is not simply about communication but also about ensuring that organisational processes, governance, research resources, data analytic capabilities etc support and inform communications efforts.

If I was to add anything to the current definition it would be an explicit reference to the reason why we make efforts to earn understanding and support – to help to achieve organisational objectives (reflected in Philip's suggested definition). Also perhaps a reference to public interest, in support of the public information model and to reflect issues of ethical practice and PR's role within civil society. 

I'll be watching how this debate develops!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I had the pleasure of presenting Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, with the CIPR 2010 President's Medal this evening, during an 'in conversation with' event at the CIPR's offices.  Below is the text of my introduction (short and to the point) about why I chose Shami and her colleagues at Liberty as the recipients of the medal.  Whatever your political persuasion, or indeed if you agree or disagree with Liberty's stance on issues of justice and equality, the work of communicating and engaging audiences on often complex issues to do with fundamental democratic principles is a challenge. Public relations is at the heart of the campaigning work of organisations such as Liberty, including education campaigns to dispel myths and promote a better understanding of human rights issues.

There will be a podcast of the conversation (hosted by the excellent Rhoda MacDonald) posted to the CIPR website soon, but there was one key take away point from the discussion - which in many ways is Liberty's biggest challenge - that can be summarised as follows:

As the merits of the Human Rights Act are debated, it is important to focus on the essence of the Act.  As Lord Bingham of Cornhill commented during the keynote speech at Liberty’s 75th Anniversary Conference, referring to those who would like to remove or dilute rights within the Act such as the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial:

Which of these rights, I ask, would we wish to discard? Are any of them trivial, superfluous, unnecessary? Are any of them un-British? There may be those who would like to live in a country where these rights are not protected, but I am not of their number.

For those considering the introduction of a British Bill of Rights, Liberty asks that we consider that the Human Rights Act already provides (to paraphrase): an "...uniquely British Bill of Rights, balancing Parliamentary Sovereignty with the Rule of Law."

Something for us to think about as we grapple with such issues.

Below is my introduction this evening:

One of the greatest privileges of being CIPR President is that you can recognise the achievements of outstanding individuals, who contribute so much through their communications skill.

In 2010 it was my honour to award the CIPR President’s medal to Shami Chakrabarti and her colleagues at Liberty, an organisation that campaigns tirelessly for individual human dignity, equal treatment and fairness. Shami's ability to engage, communicate and campaign on behalf of all sections of society is a perfect example of how public relations can be a force for good, not just for profit.

Liberty’s message is simple and powerful: every human being has a right to dignity, equality and justice and these rights must be protected by law.  This is a message that must be constantly contextualised, defended and promoted.  And, despite its simplicity, the supporting debates are often complex and nuanced, with detractors as well as supporters. The recent headlines on privacy and freedom of speech highlight the communications challenge.

But, the fact that we are able to debate freely, to agree, disagree and to question is a right that Liberty protects and I am grateful for that.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I went along to Nominet's first .uk policy forum last week (Nominet looks after .co.uk domain names). A great line up of speakers including academics, consumer rights consultants, child protection lobbyists and an ethical hacker, and a welcome from Ed Vaizey MP (via video). The theme was protection and trust online and as expected there were robust discussions about privacy and regulation vs. self-regulation (Ed Vaizey described himself as a 'self-regulationist').  Also discussed: citizen protection from criminal elements online (but also from the state and big corporate interests) and the tension between national and international policy development where the lines are blurred between jurisdictions and an international approach is needed to tackle concerns about crime and privacy.

Dr Victoria Nash of the Oxford Internet Institute made some interesting points, asking us to consider research findings that show a desire for more government intervention online from consumers whilst trust in government is declining - how is this squared? Also who should govern those who govern the Internet? If self-regulation is the model of choice then it is vital that we have full transparency and accountability - in other words, who are those making the decisions and what drives their decision making?

Another highlight was Anna Fielder, a consumer policy and rights consultant. She posed a number of thoughtful points on the issue of the 'right to be forgotton' online (essentially citizens being able to delete their online personal histories). How does this right work within a culture whereby we share content, globally? What about content that is not your personal copyright, such as a friend's photograph? And perhaps most importantly, we should consider the impacts of editing or removing personal histories. Does society have a right to access such history as part of a broader historical context? What about the transparency and accuracy of historical events if individuals are editing and removing evidence of such events or participation?

So just a few highlights from a packed day but certainly something to think about. Nominet will be synthesising the outputs of the policy day in the near future and I look forward to the outcomes.  No doubt about it, there are no easy answers....

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

 The current privacy / super injunctions debate makes fascinating reading.  But I find it difficult to support the media’s moral crusading and triumphalism (some, not all of the media).  Add MPs potentially abusing parliamentary privilege and tweets declaring success for ‘free speech’ and you have a potent rhetoric that has the potential to skew the substance of the debate.  What we are talking about here are two principles enshrined in human rights law: the right to freedom of expression and the right to respect for private and family life.  It is the balance between the two that should be at the heart of an informed and thoughtful debate, including how such principles should be supported and protected in a media environment that has changed drastically over the last decade. 

The government has belatedly announced that a joint committee of MPs will now examine privacy law.  Let’s hope that they can deliver a considered set of recommendations, as what we have now is a free-for-all.  Do MPs, or those online have a right to disregard the law because they disagree with a judgement?  Is this a victory for ‘free speech’ or the equivalent of mob rule?  For those countries that have no free speech protections, an unseemly tussle over the public’s right to know about the sex life of a footballer has the potential to make a mockery of what many are fighting for.   Indeed, it says much about the tabloidization of media and society that The Sun newspaper, a football player and a former reality TV contestant are testing such fundamental principles. Where were the campaigns following the Trafigura super injunction?  This is where the real test should have been  - a worthy cause that lacked an essential ingredient – sex.  I fear that we are being naïve if we believe that the media crying foul in this particular case is anything other than to protect and promote commercial interests.  

I am a supporter of free speech and privacy.  It is extraordinarily difficult to balance the two and I hope that the discussions that follow this debacle will be considered, focusing on what is genuinely in the public interest, rather than what the public is interested in – two different things. These rights were hard won. They deserve respect.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Having been in PR for a while (OK, more than a while) you hear very similar value propositions from consultants on what they do and how they work. But not always. That's why I'm excited to be working with the Meanwhile team as a non-exec partner, advising on everything to do with reputation, risk and crisis. 

First off, the team is outstanding (check out the biogs here).  As they say, they have built and sold businesses, brands and IP and have been the 'client, the agency, the tea-boy and the CEO'.  Check out a video of their work here. Secondly, the team blends skills from film, production, advertising, social, digital media and PR with invaluable entrepreneurial experience.  They know what it takes to run a business.  They know the challenges faced by the boards and investors.  Which brings me to their value proposition: combining the social influence of marketing and communications with the entrepreneurial approach of private equity and venture capital.  I like it.  It feels different. 

And as a non-exec, I can balance this new role with other work that challenges and excites. Can't be bad....

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The CIPR has announced that it will be launching The Conversation this coming Monday, during its social media conference. The Conversation allows the aggregation of the best PR related blogs from members and non-members, in the UK and beyond. I like this approach because it is open, gathering together the best thinking about PR from all corners of the globe.  Looking forward to reading some great content that is going to fuel the conversation about PR....

Here's what the CIPR has to say:

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) is launching ‘The Conversation’ at its social media conference, 11 April. The Conversation is your one-stop shop for great blog posts by practitioners, consultancies, academia and students, from the UK and further afield. Syndicating your personal or company blog couldn't be easier, allowing the wider PR community to find your content, find your personal, business and consultancy profiles, and respond to your news and points of view. Everyone is welcome to register themselves and their organisation.

In the spirit of The Conversation, the CIPR has invited some of the UK's keenest PR bloggers to break this news.

There will be no need to ‘make friends’ all over again on The Conversation. Simply give your existing social networks permission to allow us to take a look at your network, your social graph as some call it, and we'll make sure those relationships are established immediately on The Conversation (ie you won't need to share your passwords with us). Hey presto, instant social glue.

The Conversation promises to be an exciting addition to the CIPR's website, at least it will be with your input. It won't match Facebook for functionality or LinkedIn for seeing who's connected to whom, but it will be the first such attempt by a professional body to our knowledge. We hope you'll jump in, and work with us as we iron out the inevitable glitch or two.

Following the successes of the CIPR social media panel – CIPR TV, 'Social Summer' events in 2010 and 2011, social media measurement guidance and input to ASA regulation – it's apt that The Conversation will be launched at the CIPR social media conference. We hope to see you there.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I was one of the respondents to a call for evidence by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills on the issue of women on boards (to be clear, I'm not an 'expert' on this subject, although I am a female director (a Chair, a NED and an executive director) and have been since 1998).

The result of this consultation - Lord Davies' report on Women on Boards - rejects the idea of quotas (legislating for the percentage of women on boards) for now, but has not ruled them out completely.  In other words, corporates must heed the warning and up their game or legislation will do it for them – certainly the EU Commission has threatened to do so if there is no progress.

Personally I don't support such a move as quotas are, in my view, inherently inequitable and we are dealing with far more complex issues (such as culture, confidence and working practices) than simply opportunity creation.  In Norway, where quotas were introduced several years ago, analysis cited in the report shows that compliance has been met by the creation of more non-executive roles (which makes sense if working practices and work / life balance are of concern) but not by women rising through the organisational ranks to the board.  Can this be classed as a success?

So no quotas yet, but there are 10 recommendations for FTSE companies, which include:

FTSE 100 boards should aim for a minimum of 25% female representation by 2015

All FTSE 350 companies should set out what percentage of women they aim to have on their boards in 2013 and 2015

Additions to the UK Corporate Governance Code to include measurable objectives for diversity policy implementation and disclosure of 'meaningful' information about appointment processes and diversity

These are welcome and the report does a good job of outlining the benefits of balanced boards and identifying some of the challenges. As for the detail in the report, a few comments:

• The report calls for Chairmen and CEOs of UK companies to take action, with the support of investors and executive search firms.  I would argue that women themselves must also be part of this action by proactively engaging with their boards on cultural, working practice and selection transparency issues, from senior management upwards

• Facts behind the stats are key – we need a detailed understanding of gender balances across industry sectors so that the ‘pool’ from entry to board can be monitored, understood and mapped to the percentages recommended in the report.  This will help to identify the things we need to tackle well before senior management level (education choices etc)

• The report focuses on FTSE organisations, but it would be helpful to consider those organisations that fall outside of the FTSE, in public sector, government, third sector and smaller, private enterprises so that we have a more detailed picture of what opportunities women have grasped and how

• I welcome the view that women directors from outside of the corporate sector should be considered for roles (and that previous financial experience must not be a barrier).  To be overlooked because there is a fear women will not understand corporate governance issues if they do not have a corporate background is to – wrongly - assume a lack of governance expertise in every other sector

• It is clear from the respondents that the biggest issues are to do with work / life balance, culture of the boardroom (too male, stereotypical behaviours) and maternity issues.  So, any recommendations must link to broader policy initiatives in these areas. Numbers on their own won’t do it, nor should the review recommendations be isolated

• The provision of training for women and the creation of new networks is needed, but if cultural issues are to be tackled then this must extend to all board members, including chairs.  The creation of women-only networks and training programmes, whilst giving access to mentors and best practice, in my view create further ‘islands’ between the two groups of directors.  What is needed is open networks and training – for all directors.

Interestingly, Julia Finch (Julia is in favour of quotas at this time) writing in the Guardian today comments:

The argument against quotas from those women who have clawed their way to the top is always that nothing stopped them from making it to the boardroom.  It is not a case of pulling up the drawbridge to stop other women following: they won’t lower it, either, for those following behind and help correct a situation that is clearly wrong.

I don’t agree with this view, but it does tie into my first point about women being part of the solution.  But let’s be clear, this is about cultural norms.  It requires a broad church to change these norms.  Nothing else will do.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has published recommendations to help improve the dialogue between company boards and their shareholders by doing more to explain risk and provide balanced information for investors (amongst other things) in company reports.  The CEO of the FRC sums it up: "Annual reports are more than marketing documents."  The recommendations are in response to concerns that organisations are not being open enough about risk and other factors that may impact company performance.

The communication of risk and the degree of openness and transparency an organisation should commit to - versus compliance alone - requires expertise, not simply in understanding often complex factors, but how such factors, associated considerations and impacts should be communicated to stakeholders so that openness is supported but any risk to the organisation is managed appropriately.  This supports a recent discussion at the Institute of Directors about creating a 'culture of candour' around the board table and the need for communications experts to be at the board table, not only to help create such a culture but to understand and outline the (often nuanced) communication requirements.

If the FRC proposals are accepted, then the 'culture of candour' will become - to a degree - a requirement, as will the need to have at the table those with the expertise to anticipate and structure the appropriate communications support.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

So, my last blog post as President of the CIPR. Time flies as they say.

My final post is based on my last update to CIPR members, simply because it says all I want to say (and thanks to all those who have taken the time to comment on these posts over the last 12 months).

Roosevelt said it beautifully (about farewells): "Be sincere; be brief..." and so I will.

Firstly, a huge thank you to our members, fellows, volunteers, council and board colleagues, staff, partners and the broader public relations community for the input, advice, critique and support in 2010.

I promised small progress steps in January this year and we have achieved many, including a review and restructure of the CIPR. Also the launch of our new website and the first interactive live PR TV show, CIPR TV. New Diplomas in Public Affairs and Crisis Management; new guidance for members on planning and measurement, procurement, media spamming, communicating with children and social media. We represented the interests of our members on matters key to PR, including the Barcelona Principles on evaluation. We launched a public sector initiative to bring together examples of PR value. We were co-founders of the new UK Public Affairs Council. We brought together some of the UK's foremost social media practitioners and launched the Social Media Panel to develop advice for our members. We welcomed the UK's first cohort of Chartered PR practitioners; we launched online CPD for members and held conferences and workshops on a wide range of PR topics. We launched the Diversity Working Group and celebrated the achievement of young PR practitioners with the launch of the Future Leaders Forum. We celebrated creativity and excellence at the CIPR Awards. We opened the doors to Russell Square for our 'Social Summers' – informal weekly events for practitioners on everything social media. We held careers days for students and recruitment events for members. Our groups rolled-out a huge programme of events, awards and activities and attracted stand out speakers to their conferences. Importantly, the Institute has taken tough decisions and is back in surplus, financially in a stronger position.

So progress, yes, but there is much still to do. Not every challenge is solved. I said in January that all we set out to achieve would not be beautifully packaged in my year as President and it hasn't been. We will do more to support members impacted by spending cuts. We need to focus on tangible outputs from our new working groups and forums. We need to ensure every individual member feels supported and connected to the Institute. Our voice on national issues will be amplified. We have processes to revamp, feedback to act upon and a dialogue to continue with practitioners so that we offer the right support and guidance. We need to keep listening and engaging.

So more small steps, but all in the right direction. I now hand over the Presidency to an outstanding PR professional, someone as passionate about the CIPR and its members as I am, Paul Mylrea. Together with our new CEO Jane Wilson, our team and volunteers who form our council and board and run our groups throughout the nations and regions, the CIPR will be there for members, a voice for the profession.

It has been an honour. Happy Christmas to all those celebrating the festive season.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Luke Johnson, writing in the Financial Times, comments that

...today, every Chief Executive needs to understand PR and how to make the best use of it.

Whilst Luke's article focused on the business benefits of public relations, he also touched on crisis management, a topic which dominated last week's discussion at the Institute of Directors' annual Chartered Director 'Review of the Year'. The subject was risk and reputational risk, including how the board determines, monitors and manages risk and how it rebuilds the organisation in the aftermath of a crisis.

The CIPR was part of a panel that included former directors at Ernst & Young and HBOS and the Civil Aviation Authority. Paul Mylrea, Head of Press at the BBC and CIPR President-Elect was also part of this panel. As we discussed volcanic ash clouds, the financial crisis and the 7/7 London Bombings, all of the speakers underlined reputational risk as a key dimension in the board's planning and response to crisis. The personal reputational risk of those CEOs and Chairs that are the public face of an organisation in such times was also a key point of discussion.

The discussion was a broad one, but as it related to PR, the consensus was that public relations practitioners must work hand-in-hand with the board to monitor and manage reputational risk, particularly in relation to trust and transparency, and that CEOs and Boards must be trained to respond and deal with such risk. One speaker discussed a 'culture of candour', the role of the board and its advisors in creating such a culture. As PR practitioners facilitating dialogue and feedback with publics, monitoring perception and reputation, our role is to advise the board with candour, not just in times of crisis but in the management and discussion of any reputational risk to the organisations that we advise.

I'll be doing some more work with colleagues on reputation risk issues in the New Year, but to summarise a few key points from our President-Elect:

• the worst thing that could happen to your organisation is often the mundane thing that is not on the crisis plan
• the people that can do most harm to an organisation can be friends, family and colleagues - not the obvious choices
• the worst time for the worst thing to happen is now.

On a positive note, excellent planning, monitoring and building a trusted relationship with the board will help organisations respond well in times of crisis, helping the organisation to retain and regain reputational capital.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I've been a bit remiss on the blog front recently, but for good reasons. Between the appointment of our new CEO Jane Wilson, the launch of our public sector communicator campaign and Future Leaders Forum, the kick-off of our PRide Awards, consultation with the ASA, our first live Presidential debate on CIPR TV and a host of other activities, I've also been closely involved with the development of our updated research, planning and measurement Toolkit and guidance for Members (non-members can read a short excerpt to get a feel for the content).

Building on our previous Toolkits, it's designed to help practitioners plan and evaluate / communicate the value of their work. Once again, we have placed as much emphasis on the research and planning elements of the Toolkit as we have on the measurement. One can't happen without the other, but in the broader measurement debate, the two often get separated. And as you would expect following our vocal support of the Barcelona Principles, there is a clear focus on measuring outcomes, not outputs.

Accompanying the Toolkit is a range of 'introductions to…' and case studies measuring different types of PR campaigns, from public affairs and crisis communications to internal communications. We have tips on how to tie PR measurement into wider organisational activities, advice on how to work with an evaluation company and a rich resource of glossaries, reading lists and descriptions of concepts such as Market Mix Modelling.

The guidance was a collective effort, with practitioners (and non-practitioners in some cases) from very different organisations participating in a series of round tables, some developing specific content (such as measuring the financial value of PR and Market Mix Modelling), teams sharing examples of work and of course we have had input from AMEC, who have been a great support. My thanks to all.

We are also supporting AMEC's upcoming conference 'PR Measurement Metrics – From Concept to Implementation Reality' on 17 November 2010 and will contribute to AMEC's consultation on new measurement metrics – alternatives to AVE, which, once launched, will form part of our guidance. We have a great team of global measurement experts feeding into the consultation and I'm sure the conference will be both lively and informative.

One thing is clear from all the meetings, discussions and research and that is there is no magic measurement bullet, no one-size-fits-all super formula that delivers a number. However, there are core principles that apply across the board, a real sense of momentum behind the measurement debate and a global, collective effort to make real progress. I'm feeling hopeful.

Comments on the CIPR Website

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Between Eric Pickles' pronouncement on the use of public affairs consultants and The Guardian's investigation into what it has emotively termed 'reputation laundering', PR has taken a hit over the last week. Ironically, those who accuse PR practitioners of spin appear to have a knack for it. It's unfortunate that balance appears to have gone by the wayside, as both issues are important. They should be discussed.

Neil Gibbons, Editor of Communicate Magazine, posted a response to the Guardian piece. In it, he articulated the link between reputation management and effecting change (for the good), the need for communications skill and the right to present a viewpoint. It was a considered defence of public relations. Whilst there may well be examples of bad practice out there, as there are in any profession, there are also many that are good. This needs to be recognised.

I was talking to our President-Elect, Paul Mylrea about it too. As a former journalist and Communications Director for Oxfam and the Department for International Development, he is familiar with these issues. He made some interesting points. There are many situations you will walk away from for ethical reasons, but there are times when you have to engage to make progress, particularly in transitionary situations. There may be issues with the way the individual, organisation or country operates (or has operated), but if there is an opportunity to genuinely effect positive change for the benefit of others, then it is fair to consider offering support. Sometimes those outside a situation, with perspective, can give stark advice that others 'inside' cannot, to say 'behaviour needs to change or economic and social prosperity won't be achieved, nor will public opinion change'. Offering such counsel can only be done in a way that is skilled, transparent and ethical. That's the tricky part. Balancing the two requires judgement (for example, is the stated desire or efforts to change / progress / develop authentic?) and practitioners have to be prepared to walk if it can't be done.

As for Eric Pickles' statements, the generalisations and emotive statements may grab the headlines, but in the desire to make a point, there is a danger that the very real benefits of using expertise to support public information requirements, community relations, consultations and other activities will be lost, not to mention the impact on business services sector growth and economic contribution. Yes we have a job to do to participate in efficiency plans, to work smartly. Yes we need to ensure that communications delivers in line with local and national goals. Transparency is of course key. But as I've said before, there should be discussions based on a real understanding of what public relations can and does deliver, how public / private partnerships can work and the development of new delivery and support models.

Our members have the experience and the examples to contribute to both discussions. Tabloidisation of PR doesn't help. Polarising doesn't get us anywhere either. These are difficult, often sensitive issues. But, public relations is a profession that contributes much economically and socially. We have a significant historical and contemporary armoury at our disposal – examples of positive impacts on behaviour, engagement for public benefit, contributions to economic success and of course examples of where we have got it wrong and what we have learned from it. We are grown up enough to have the discussion. So for those members who have the experience and the examples, please do get in touch. We can bring it together, share it, discuss it and inject the balance that's needed. As for Mr Pickles, the CIPR and its Government Affairs Group are ready and willing to engage. Indeed, we are already working with the Cabinet Office on the new UK Public Affairs Council. So I would urge Mr Pickles, as he himself has urged others, to pick up the 'phone.

Comments on the CIPR website

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Following my recent post on the Barcelona Principles, the CIPR and AMEC met this week to discuss our review of measurement and evaluation guidance. It was a fascinating conversation, focused on how we can use the Principles to underpin our recommendations, the merits of developing a simple framework for measurement, the importance of research and planning and a focus on outcomes rather than outputs. We also met with a range of other organisations to tackle issues such as understanding and tracking reputational value and government measurement standards.

We agreed that our consultations will result in a structured and practical new initiative to help our members and the profession to communicate value - and now more than ever, we have to work hard to demonstrate it. As public sector budget cuts bite, the need for communication and engagement in support of difficult change is vitally important - internally and externally. But, investments need to be linked to outcomes. As the private sector identifies opportunities for growth, PR has a key role to play and we must not forget not-for-profit and other social initiatives that need to maintain their voice with their publics.

As Katie Delahaye Paine pointed out in our interview with Katie and Barry Leggetter of AMEC in Barcelona, the PR profession needs to provide consultancy and guidance to our clients and/or our own organisations on what is best practice - best practice that will deliver a sharp focus on value.

We will keep you updated on progress and thanks to all who have inputted and spent time sharing their views and experiences so far.

Comments on the CIPR website

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The world's experts in research and public relations measurement and evaluation came together in Barcelona this past week under the umbrella of AMEC (the Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication). The CIPR's Measurement Group joined with organisations such as the Global Alliance for Public Relations, the IPR's Commission on Measurement and Evaluation, the PRSA and the ICCO to agree a set of measurement and evaluation principles.

The Barcelona Principles, which will be refined based on detailed participant feedback, will be built on by AMEC and its partners over the coming months and years.

I guess the standout headline from the principles is that "AVEs are not the value of public relations" - a strong statement that participants hope will allow the PR profession to move forward and to develop more sophisticated techniques that measure organisational impact.

The principles are listed below and we will review and consider these as we update the CIPR's guidance on measurement and evaluation. One thing we want to ensure is that the breadth of public relations activity is reflected in our guidance - so media and non-media activities. You may be interested in listening to Philip Sheldrake, Chair of our Measurement Group run through the principles and interview AMEC's Executive Director Barry Leggetter and Katie Delahaye Paine of KD Paine & Partners (the 'Queen of Measurement'!) about the conference output:

And I use the word 'output' diligently. As you may note from the principles and from the audio, the PR profession must move from measuring outputs towards evaluating outcomes, and, of course, whilst we now know the output of the conference, the outcome remains to be seen. As Katie Delahaye Paine points out, it is up to us to provide and assert the consultancy and guidance to our clients and/or our own organisations. Each principle will be explained in more detail in an accompanying explanatory text from AMEC, due for publication soon, but for now the headlines are:

• Goal setting and measurement are important

• Media measurement requires quantity and quality

• AVEs are not the value of public relations

• Social media can and should be measured

• Measuring outcomes is preferred to measuring media results (outputs)

• Organisational results and outcomes should be measured whenever possible

• Transparency and replicability are paramount to sound measurement.

We'll be sure to let you know as soon as the AMEC team has taken the feedback from conference delegates into account and finalised the detail. Barry Leggetter and other members of the AMEC team are joining me and other members of our Measurement Group on the 6th July for a roundtable at Russell Square.

This will also help the Social Media Measurement Group achieve its objectives for 2010 (part of our broad review of M&E guidance), as listed on its wiki, specifically the updating and communication of the CIPR's measurement and evaluation policy. Note: You may also find a previous interview Philip Sheldrake conducted with Katie Delahaye Paine, 20th June 2010, of interest:

Comments on the CIPR website

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Guest blog post from CIPR President-Elect, Paul Mylrea.

Last week's PRWeek article has brought welcome attention to diversity. By now, we really should have understood that diversity is a no-brainer, bringing social and business benefits as well as quite simply being the right thing to do. But we still have huge hurdles to overcome.

As the impact of government cuts bite, we will have to work even harder to maintain a diverse profession. That's why it is important that we make real efforts now to keep diversity at the top of the agenda. At the CIPR, that's what we are trying to do. We are already working towards concrete actions on diversity and have set up a new Diversity Working Group, which will be looking to improve the profession's scorecard in this area. But it is still early days and we are keen for new input.

Research that the CIPR has been working on shows that the profession is 63% female, 7.2% non-white British but included only 0.3% of people who considered themselves disabled. However, this does not include figures on senior positions, which is due soon and is expected to show a 'glass ceiling' for diverse candidates. We know, for example, that despite the number of women, men in the industry have higher average salaries than women.

We know that although around 7% of the profession are from ethnic minority backgrounds, there is higher representation in the in-house sector. We need to understand what this means.

We also know that people of Asian and Asian British origin are significantly under-represented.  And we know that disability is our profession's worst performing area. Research – mainly in the US – has shown that diverse candidates act as pioneers, educators, mentors and agenda builders. But for them to play these roles, they have to have the opportunity. We know that to deal with this, we need to avoid tick box exercises, which is what seemed to happen in the past. Equally, we know that senior buy-in from industry and the sector is crucial if we are going to move this forward.

We are already working towards concrete actions on diversity. But the key to this will be the widest participation and the largest input into this conversation. We also need to deliver more than warm words – and keep our promises. That's why we want to hear from you. So send me a note if you want more information, and we'll be out with more information soon on our next steps.

Comments on the CIPR website

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I read the PRCA's PRMoment article last Friday on what skills are useful in PR. The general theme of the piece ties into my most recent post – the new PR practitioner – but it also considers two old chestnuts: is PR an industry or a profession, and the value of PR degrees. Personally, I don't believe we will reach a consensus on either of these points anytime soon (and we have tried over the years). But here's my take on it…

Does it matter what we call it? I call it a profession, others call it industry. But what matters is professionalism. If we want to think about it semantically, a definition of an industry is the production of an economic good, a product or service. A definition of a profession is still rooted in the production of a service or good, but has codes of professional and ethical conduct and formal qualifications, either through examination or - as has been the case with PR for many years - 'in-role' training.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Katie's view is that public relations has a fantastic opportunity to be the discipline of choice as organisations engage online and build dialogue with their audiences. And, we can measure this engagement, but only if we have the analytical skills to do so.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The CIPR's Social Media Panel launched a measurement group last week - it includes some of the world's experts on social web analytics and measurement. Their biographies say it all, so do take a look.

The reasons we have launched this group is that public relations practitioners are being bombarded with tools and promises of new ways to measure online 'influence'. Some of these tools have real potential – others are the online equivalent of AVEs. Rather than replicate unsound approaches online, we have an opportunity to set the standard and to develop this standard as technologies advance.

Now is the time to get to grips with these tools and to understand them with the help of those who have been working in measurement for many years. We can then offer practitioners guidance on what to look out for and what approaches to build with clients. We also have an opportunity to work with those organisations developing the tools - in a spirit of partnership - so that there is a real understanding of the complexities of influence and how best to measure it. The outputs from this group will also be integrated into the wider measurement and evaluation guidance we are currently developing, for launch later this year.

The group is one of the first 'outputs' from our Social Media Panel, alongside the launch of our Social Summer – a series of informal events on social media topics chaired by some of the best thinkers. It's a great opportunity to pick their brains and to network.

What is truly unique about Social Summer – and indeed our panel – is that it is completely open and collaborative. Panel discussions, meeting minutes and the Social Summer series are hosted on a wiki. If you would like to suggest a topic for Social Summer, take a look. Finally, our Digital Impact Conference on Monday 24 May offers a perfect time to meet some of our panellists and other experts as we talk digital.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The timesheet debate has always been contentious, but Graham Goodkind's piece in PRWeek touches on a number of key issues for the profession.

PR consultants should be rewarded fairly for their services, whatever these services may be (creative or otherwise). If the agreement with the client is to bill by the hour, then a record of hours spent is appropriate. In my experience, the best relationships between PR consultants and clients are based on open and transparent discussions about campaigns, what works and what doesn't and, of course, achieving the objectives set. These discussions typically include the balance of where time is being spent or tricky elements such as 'we would love to do everything, but we can't'. So this is really about fair reward for public relations services, delivery of campaigns and the quality of the dialogue between client and consultant.

But we musn't forget that consultancies also have the difficult task of managing their internal resources effectively and profitably, whilst focusing on delivering client campaigns. This isn't easy. You can find more on the subject from PRWeek and a lively response from Steve Earl at Speed.

What's more, we announced our CIPR Social Media Panel today. Thanks to all who have joined. I'm really looking forward to their input and guidance. What's great about this group is that it's about listening, an open conversation, collaboration and challenge. We are going to do more of it.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

There was an extremely interesting development in social media measurement yesterday - SAS (business analytics / business intelligence provider) stepped into the ring with the launch of its new social media monitoring product. Now, there are many social media measurement vendors out there (see the social web analytics guide if you want to know more) but SAS is one of the first business intelligence heavyweights to offer a tool to help organisations analyse and act on insight from online conversations across multi-language professional and user media destinations.

Being able to identify advocates and threats to reputation is hugely valuable, but there is one element of this introduction that I am particularly interested in and that's the possibility that social media analysis can be integrated with traditionally siloed analytics - retail, web, CRM etc. In other words, core business performance tools. The reason the 'who pays' discussion is still on the table could be that PR is viewed as 'outside' of the organisation, a functional add-on, not strategically integrated (this is not the case for all organisations of course). If an organisation makes the investment in research and planning then it has an opportunity to use the outputs to underpin decision making, to change or adapt for the benefit of the publics and the organisation. It has broad benefits. It's likely that these mechanisms already exist functionally, in sales or marketing, so it's about extending and integrating with PR... (Also see my earlier blog on Payment by Results: Here We Go Again.) In other words, if we (the profession) are to demonstrate real business impact - not just media clips (which has not moved the measurement debate forward), then we have to plan, report and measure in an integrated way, so that we are part of broader business performance measurement. This will help us to understand correlative and causal factors that lead to positive and negative impacts on the organisation's plan. It means we can fine-tune, test, repeat and discard with more confidence. It means we are inside the tent, not outside. Looking forward to seeing how this develops. If anyone has examples of this approach in practice, please get in touch.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »