Author: penningink

Public relations professor and consultant. Author.

Does PRSA Leadership Consider Gaslighting Ethical?

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

For years, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) has designated September as ethics month. The organization also has its annual convention and leadership assembly, with delegates from every regional chapter, in October. So the last day of September is a good time on the cusp of the two to consider ethics and leadership in PRSA.

The key question as noted in the headline is whether the leadership of PRSA who promote ethics in the profession consider gaslighting to be an ethical action. That question comes up because that has been strongly alleged by one member, Mary Beth West, APR, Fellow PRSA.

West, a veteran PR professional and long-time PRSA member, has been in a long-term battle with PRSA leadership after she asked leadership questions about financial discrepancies, even to the point of non-compliance with New York State Law. She also requested information about finances and other leadership issues, such as the insider approach of the current board appointing their friends as new board members. She has continued complaining about a lack of disclosure and transparency.

“Disclosure of Information” is a provision of the PRSA Code of Ethics. However, after asking the PRSA leadership to basically adhere to its own code of ethics, West was met at first with stonewalling, and then with gaslighting, and even punitive retribution. PRSA leaders responded tersely, then harshly, and then threatened to take away her APR (Accreditation in Public Relations) and membership in the College of Fellows.  All this for being persistent in asking honest questions.

(Self-disclosure: I am also APR and a member of the PRSA College of Fellows).

Apart from her displeasure in PRSA leadership failure to follow its own ethics code, West is most concerned that members of PRSA are not aware of how the organization is being led and what is happening with their dues. This includes those members who will represent their chapter in a few weeks at the National Assembly. She has worked to bring these issues to light with her Facebook page called A Better PRSA and a series of YouTube videos documenting her interactions with the PRSA board called #prsagaslighting .

It is not clear if this issue will be resolved or sputter. But, it is not just something between West and the PRSA board; it is really between the board and all members. I know of more than a few long-time PRSA members who have let their memberships lapse or are considering doing so because of their own disappointment with leadership. 

The question is if those members who remain will take the time to review West’s documented evidence of questionable board behavior and then ask leadership some questions of their own. If more people do so, there may be a more honest and civil response. Or to use terminology from crisis theory, perhaps the board will be moved to more ethical response that eschews denial and attack the accuser strategies and moves to apology and corrective action. 

The Peripheral Presidential Campaign

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

As an academic, I tend to look at events and news with a mind on theory. Reading news about the current presidential campaign, it occurred to me that I am witnessing an example of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) in the campaign of Kamala Harris.

It could be called the peripheral presidential campaign because of how it is executed and how people are responding to it.

Simply, ELM says that people process information through two cognitive routes. The central route is used when people are paying close attention or are highly “involved”. In this state they are seeking information and they want it in quantity and detailed specificity.

It is similar to peripheral vision, in which one sees things off to the side and not by looking directly at it. 

The other route is used when people have low involvement, meaning they don’t see the topic at hand as personally relevant or they are otherwise not motivated to do the focused thinking and information processing. This is called the peripheral route. 

When some describe the Harris campaign as appealing to “low-information voters,” meaning voters who do not seek detailed information, I think of low involvement voters and those who are considering the campaign via a peripheral route. 

While all presidential campaigns to a degree appeal to voters with platitudes and general themes for peripheral consideration, the Harris campaign is unique in this regard for several reasons:

  • She replaced her party’s candidate late in the campaign and did not receive an y primary votes;
  • Since being named the candidate more than two months ago she has not held a press conference;
  • She has done only three interviews, all of them brief and with reporters clearly partial to her and yet she offered little substance.
  • Her campaign website for a long time had only donation appeals and little on policy. The recently added “issues” tab discusses policies but in ways that stress contrast (see below) over substance and details. As many point out, she does not answer why her future goals if elected have not been addressed currently while vice president.

Even CNN—not a conservative network—has reported that many undecided voters actually want more details about policies and positions from a campaign promoting “vibes.” Others have criticized the media at large of journalistic malpractice for enabling this peripheral campaign and not insisting on more and detailed responses. Even more troubling than allowing vagueness is not fact-checking and correcting untruths. But to peripheral voters, even truth may not matter. Oxford dictionaries made the adjective “post-truth” the word of the year in 2016. It defines it as “related to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion or personal belief.” That describes peripheral processing perfectly. 

While many would say that Harris outperformed Trump in their single debate, the reality is that her debate points were also largely peripheral. Partisans cheered both debaters but the undecided voters who tuned in wanted more.

Vibes could also be called what scholars label peripheral cues, which are what people consider when they are not thinking critically or processing information in the central route. There are seven identified peripheral cues that can be persuasive to people short of detailed information and substantive argument:

  • authority—people are persuaded because of someone’s position or title;
  • commitment—people are persuaded by their perception of a communicator’s commitment to a cause;
  • contrast—people are persuaded when someone sets up uneven points of comparison, i.,e. It’s either this or that or at least it’s not that;
  • liking—people are persuaded by a stressed affinity of a person toward them;
  • reciprocity—people are persuaded by a quid pro quo promise, i.e. if you do this I’ll do that
  • scarcity—people are persuaded by a fear of missing out, a false sense of urgency;
  • social proof—people are persuaded by the perception that others like themselves think or do something.

Again, any politician uses some or all of these peripheral cues when seeking votes. But those messages are usually part of broader appeals that do included specifics. For example, Trump has done more than 50 interviews since Harris became his opponent, and in these and other campaign events he talks about specific policies and results of his past term and details of his plan for another. Harris, meanwhile, as the CNN article and others attest, has offered only messaging that has peripheral impact.

As examples, she refers to her commitment to causes without policy specifics, and when questioned about how her commitment has changed (ion things from fracking to the border), she insists in vague terms that her values are the same. She certainly contrasts herself to her opponent, Donald Trump, albeit not always truthfully, in the hopes of earning votes not on who she is but who she is not. And she strongly stresses liking, with words such as “joy” being an emotive theme devoid of rational clarity.

One thing the theory does say about the peripheral route—it can persuade but only in the short-term. Less than two months from election day, that may be enough and actually the plan of the Harris campaign. After that, anything from rising fuel prices to an unanticipated policy to the breakout of war could make things relevant enough for peripheral voters to start processing things centrally. But at that point no amount of specific information can lead to them adapting their behavior—election day will be over.

The case for CCOs and PR pros to have seats on corporate boards advances

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

It is a cliche among PR professionals that they need to have a “seat at the table.” By “table” we usually mean the conference table around which the management team sits. The top PR person or Chief Communication Officer (CCO) should be leading and making organizational decisions alongside their counterparts in marketing, finance, operations and others.

I have been interested in this “seat” being even better than the management table: the corporate board. I have recently published my own research on this, and now there is a report from a global consulting firm showing that CCOs are finally starting to be seen as having more value than outbound communication.   

 The research I recently published,  “PR capacity on corporate boards: claiming the CSR and ESG responsibility?” is online now and will be published soon in the Journal of Communication Management. 

The premise for my research is that if corporations, and their boards, have shown more concern for corporate social responsibility (CSR) and ESG (environment, social, governance) metrics, then PR professionals or CCOs who focus on these things should be invited to give perspective and leadership on these subjects at the board level.

I looked at 25 companies on a list that ranked them high on ESG and CSR—the Fortune Modern Board 25—to see if they had board members with education or job titles in PR or communications. When I found few, I also looked to see if PR and communications pros were on the senior management team and advised the board or produced ESG, CSR, sustainability or diversity reports. Here I also found little management of these areas by PR and communication professionals. What I did find as a trend is more staff with degrees and titles specifically  in sustainability or diversity who manage these issues, potentially with collaboration of the CCO.

My sample was purposefully limited to companies who were ranked high on DEI, CSR, and ESG. So it is limited. So I was happy to read a report from global consulting firm Korn Ferry called “Chief Communications Officers: A New Face on the Board.”  

Korn Ferry looked not at specific issues like ESG but more broadly at reputation management. They found that more boards are leaning on CCOs to navigate business and cultural transformation, opening the path to the corporate boards that has been closed.

With corporate reputation accounting for as much as  25% of a company’s market value, more CCOs have risen to be trusted advisors to CEOs. Now these CCOs are advising and in some cases invited to join corporate boards.

The five areas where CCOs are being asked to advise boards include: talent development, change management, social impact, geopolitics, and risk management. All of these subjects come up in my undergraduate PR courses and my graduate course in communications management. Related terms like internal/employee relations, crisis communications, community relations and other terms associated with public relations and communication would indicate that this is the profession that is well suited to steer companies from the top—the board.

It’s early, but I am happy about this trend. I like a key quote from the KornFerry report that emphasizes that people in communications careers think differently than those in legal, finance or risk management. Exactly, and the different thinking is about balancing value for multiple stakeholders and ensuring transparent and two-way communication.

I and other educators and professionals in PR have been saying these for years. It’s heartening to see that some companies, all the way up to their boards, are hearing it now.

Academic year ends with scholarly hat trick

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

It’s final exam week, and along with the excitement of seeing students finish projects and exams and head off to summer activities or graduation and career, I’m excited for my own accomplishments this year.

It doesn’t always work out this way, but this year I had a scholarly hat trick–three journal publications in one year.

The first was “A case for the plausibility of public relations licensing: The carrot of privileged communication.” This article in Public Relations Review started at the International Public Relations Research Conference (IPRRC) in Orlando in 2022 when Tyler Page of the University of Connecticut asked to talk to me after I presented some research on PR accreditation and other career milestones. He had this related idea for a paper. We brought on another scholar, Luke Caprizzo of the University of Missouri, to work on this together. We presented our paper at IPRRC the following year and it was published in December of 2023.

Essentially, we argue that accreditation is optional and has not really worked as intended after licensure of PR practice failed. We propose a limited form of licensure, and those who choose to obtain it would be granted the right of privileged communication. in the same form as attorney-client privilege. That would mean PR professionals offering counsel to CEOs would claim that conversation is privileged and not subject to subpoena. This would provide CEOs more confidence in PR counsel and allow more candor, and in the process elevate the profession and serve society better.

The second paper I published this year is a long-term effort and was the one in earlier form Tyler Page heard me present. “Perceptions of formal career achievements in public relations by students, professionals and employers: The certificate, accreditation and College of Fellows” was also published in Public Relations Review earlier this month. We surveyed PR students, professionals and employers who hire PR professionals on awareness and perceptions of these career achievements listed in the title. My partners in this project were two former members of the Universal Accreditation Board (UAB)–John Forde of Mississippi State University and Sharee Broussard who works for Mobile County, Alabama. We looked at it through the lens of Social Cognitive Career Theory, and found in general that motivations to pursue the Certificate, Accreditation in Public Relations (APR), or membership in the College of Fellows is less about value expectancy or extrinsic reward, and more a personal and intrinsic perceived value for those who pursue it. We also found a good number with little appreciated value for these career designations.

The final paper I did solo and is based on a question I had: if PR professionals and scholars spend so much time discussing ESG, CSR, and DEI, and so many corporations are concerned with these things at the board level, are their people on boards with PR experience and education? I looked at the 25 companies on a list that ranked the top companies for these things–The Fortune Modern 25 Corporate Boards–and found in fact little PR capacity on these boards. Instead, many companies now have people with backgrounds, degrees and job titles specifically in things like sustainability and diversity, and PR people work with them in supportive or collaborative capacity. In the paper “PR capacity on corporate boards: Claiming the CSR and ESG responsibility?” published in the Journal of Communication Management, I discuss the implications for the future for PR at the management level.

So with the final buzzer on this academic year about to sound, I am savoring my scholarly hat trick. After teaching a spring class I will stay on the sidelines and enjoy a fall sabbatical to write a book with the working title “Public Relations Theory in Practice: Strategic Applications for Professionals.” The publisher is asking for a manuscript in early 2025. I’ll be sure to share that when it is available.

The business of journalism and the future of PR

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

An annual report from a news outlet says a lot about the business of journalism. For one thing, journalism is a business.

It may also be a nonprofit mission. 

One thing journalism is not is an institution with a unique claim to the first amendment and role in democracy. Oh it certainly has “a” role, but it is not unique to journalism. When “freedom of the press” was inscribed into our First Amendment it was a reference not to an institution or an as-yet unformed profession. It was about people who owned and operated a printing press. 

In other words, business men.

These people were printers, and they printed leaflets, advertisements and many things, including newspapers. All of the above had been restricted under the British Stamp Act, requiring a literal stamp of approval by the government before anything could be published. This was one of many grievances our founders had against King George. 

In our modern era, the “press” includes all forms of means to produce and distribute information. So-called “mainstream” media are part of that. But so are an increasing number of other voices contributing information and perspective to the public sphere.

So, our democracy has become also a cacophony. It is the beautiful mess of freedom. But in this mess traditional journalism has had to adapt, to pivot, just like any other businesses adjusting to technology, market demand and other changes.

My thinking on this was prompted by two publications recently. One was an article in Crain’s Grand Rapids Business about the creative ways journalism is handling it’s current business crisis. Incidentally,  Crains just recently added a paywall, so subscription is required to read this article. Crain’s also has gone from free publication of those personnel and brief company updates to a paid model. Both are signs of the business reality of needing revenue from multiple sources now that the old model of subscriptions and large advertising income alone is not sustainable.

Another item that caught my eye was the Bridge Michigan and Bridge Detroit annual report. It is an interesting read, showcasing their values, coverage areas, awards won, and the annual report requisite numbers about readership and revenue. I found it interesting and well done, as a subscriber and a PR professional. It meets the goal of annual reports of transparency, loyalty building, brand promotion and solicitation. 

Both the article and annual report from media outlets I subscribe to are a reminder to me not to take good reporting for granted. They also are evident that journalism is not taking readers for granted. Nor should they. The competitive landscape has changed:

  • So much of the media marketplace is online, where news is shared not in a branded publication or outlet but a single story at a time, aggregated by third parties like Apple News, Flipboard and others or users’ own forms of curation;
  • News links have been banned in some countries on social media because publishers need to make the profit, not the social platforms. But this also limits distribution;
  • Many other businesses are doing brand journalism that extends beyond their product or service lines and simple brings more content into the overall media mix. Examples include Coke‘s studio and UPS stories. 
  • Traditional media organizations are increasingly seeing competition from independent journalists who start their solo brand on platforms like Substack. Examples include Christopher Rufo, Matt Taibi, and Bari Weiss, all of whom left jobs at prominent media to be journalism entrepreneurs.
  • Then there is the host of alternative media platforms ranging from the Daily Wire and Blaze Media on the Right to Slate and Huffington Post on the left. 
  • To round out the landscape there is a growing number of think-tanks and other similar institutions that put out daily articles. These include the American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal, the Cato Institute, and the Brookings Institute.

All of this relates to public relations in several ways. Obviously, the media relations aspect of public relations is affected—if people don’t read or believe the media en masse, it has less credibility and reach and is therefore less useful as a public relations channel. Secondly, public relations professionals have increasing outlets to reach, and can also be very successful representing organizations with branded journalism and other channels they can control as part of a growing mix of tactical options.

One of the key questions going forward has to be if journalism in competition will see objectivity as a unique selling proposition or a competitive liability. Will news outlets brand themselves by ideology or neutrality. This will also affect the decisions of which media PR professionals pitch and where media planners buy advertising. 

There are examples of both with new online outlets in Michigan. Bridge, which I mentioned earlier, promotes objectivity and bi-partisan reporting in its annual report. Meanwhile, the Michigan Advance sells its “top notch progressive commentary”.

While each journalism outlet will make its own editorial policy and market-driven decisions, there is also an issue of journalism damaging its “institutional brand.’ For example, public relations professionals hate the expression “just PR” which takes a single episode of bad practice and smears the whole profession. I wrote about the notion of “just journalism” previously due to the growing lack of objectivity in reporting, with even some editors speaking of it with disdain as something old-fashioned. 

Since writing that I have seen more examples of waning objectivity not just at the national level but in local media. My local paper refused to cover a story about a teacher quitting over mandated critical race theory lessons because the editor’s wife was a teacher and became the managing editor is “against book banning,’ even though that was not the issue in this case. It was news, regardless of editors’ personal opinions. A local TV station refused to cover people who were concerned about the appropriateness of public drag queen performances because they “did not want to give platform to hate.” Again, that is a pre-judgment and subjective value decision, not one of objective journalism to tell the story and represent all views.

I don’t know if the market—i.e. readers, listeners, viewers and in turn advertisers—will restore journalism to a sustainable business with a unique identity as professional purveyors of objective truth. It could be we have enjoyed a period of time in which news media was central to communication and a revered societal institution that will one day be seen as quaint, as different groups settle into their partisan echo chambers to be fed red herrings and propaganda. But, change happened before in the media.

A little less than 80 years ago, in 1947, prominent media formed the Hutchins Commission, chaired by Robert Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago, in an impressive act of professional self regulation. They asserted a need for freedom of the press but also a need for journalists to resist sensationalism and give society what it needs.

And so, once again perhaps journalism may need a business retreat. As a profession, it needs to consider what it offers of unique value to society. It is not enough to assert its “importance to democracy” when readers are tired of its flaws and many others as I mentioned above are doing their own reporting, ranging from objective to perspective.