Tag: PR

How University Boards Should be Selected and Act

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

Many people do not give a lot of thought about boards, particularly university boards, until there is a crisis. But they are critical to a well-functioning organization whether situations or routine or challenging. 

A professional man in a blue suit gestures while speaking during a meeting at a conference table, with attendees seated in the background.

How people get on university boards is currently at issue in Michigan. A recent article in Bridge about whether Michigan’s governor should appoint board members for all of Michigan’s state universities. This would be similar to most other states. Currently voters in Michigan elect boards members for the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University. Given some issues at those universities such as sudden departures of presidents, and the facts that voters are not informed enough to select university board members, there is a proposal to have the governor appoint boards.

But appointed boards are not necessarily a guarantee of better boards. Some boards can exercise their role more with arrogance than competence. 

This was evident recently when more than 200 faculty, staff and students wrote a letter to the board of the university where I teach. They expressed displeasure with the direction of the university and its current president, who among other things, has never taught a class and does not seem interested in faculty perspective. The board responded by extending the president’s contract three years before it was even up for renewal.

This shows a problem of appointed boards. Candidates for university boards are often brought before the governor from the universities themselves, often with the president’s involvement. This sounds more like perpetuating a cabal than a judicious selection of a board.

In my own research on public relations capacity on corporate boards and nonprofit boards, I grounded the studies on board theory. There are essentially two schools of thought on boards. Resource Dependency Theory says that board members provide resources from outside the organization needed for survival or growth. Meanwhile, Agency Theory says the role of boards is monitoring the executive and acting in the interest of stakeholders, Often organizational boards are a blend of both, providing external resources and knowledge as well as ensuring the executive acts in accordance with stakeholder expectations.

It is clear in the example above from GVSU that the board did not monitor the executive in the interest of the stakeholders. They were more concerned with their personal relationship with the president than their professional responsibility to stakeholders.

My research focused on public relations capacity in board members of both corporations and nonprofit executives. There is, sadly, little evidence of it. Most board members are selected in accordance with Resource Dependency Theory to provide resources other than public relations. This includes an expertise in finance, law, and whatever it is the organization does.

Board members who understand that public relations is not mere publicity but all about mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders would better serve both the organization and the varied stakeholders it must serve. If board members are appointed or elected, they should have a grasp of their oversight role and that the work not for the president and institution but they oversee it to ensure it serves the taxpayers, faculty, staff, students and other stakeholders. 

The focus on relationships is more than a public relations perspective. It is essential to good leadership and management. At my institution, there was a sudden leadership change at multiple top executive positions. I was at a meeting where they introduced themselves and when they started and none had been at the university more than 18 months. I was sitting near faculty like myself who had been at the institution more than 20 or 30 years. But the new executives addressed this by having events where faculty could learn about them. They never attempted to learn about the faculty and how they had contributed to the growth of the university for so long. 

Recently the university had an event at which the current and four past presidents spoke and reflected. The oldest and longest-serving president recalled how he would walk around campus and drop in on offices on a regular basis to get to know people better, learn what they were working on, hear their ideas and concerns. I personally remember that. The culture has changed. A board, especially if a member or two is savvy to public relations, could insist that the president and executive team work harder to get to know long-serving faculty and staff and institutional history before trying to impose their new imprint on the university.

What will be important more than how board members are selected is how board members serve. Also, there needs to be a mechanism not just to select board members but to remove those who do not act in the interest of stakeholders. 

Book Connects Theory to Strategic Practice for Public Relations Professionals and Students

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

The result of more than a year of work, my new book “Public Relations Theory in Practice: Strategic Applications for Professionals” will be published June 2, 2025. It is available now for pre-order at Amazon (in both paperback or Kindle versions) or the Business Expert Press publisher’s website.

I had worked as a public relations professional before transitioning into a career as a full-time professor. I learned quickly that theory and practice are not disconnected as some assume, but are realistically connected. In my 25 years as an academic I worked to connect academic concepts with everyday practice both in class and when speaking to professionals.

I grew weary over time of the expression “that sounds good in theory, but here in the REAL world….” The fact is, professionals’ experiences are the subject of research, which in turn develops theory. If practice informs theory, it only makes sense that theory would inform practice.

The key benefit to a robust understanding of theory can be summed up in one word: strategy. Public relations professionals speak often of the need to be strategic, a common part of a PR campaign plan is the articulation of strategy. Well, theory is fuel for strategy.

As I note in the book’s introduction, today’s public relations professionals need to account to management and clients for whether they have caused stakeholders to make meaningful changes in their attitudes and behaviors that match organizational objectives. This requires strategy based on established theory that is well-reasoned and tested, not just informed guesses and clever tactics based on individual perspective.

The book is divided into six parts, beginning with a simple explanation of what theories really are, how they are derived, different types of theories, and why they are practical and not mere abstractions. The following parts explain communication theory generally (interpersonal, small group, and organizational), mass media, persuasion, ethics, and theories specific to public relations practice. Each part ends with a series of summative strategic statements that professionals can apply to daily practice.

In keeping with the theme of connecting academics to professional practice, I am grateful to have received testimonials from a respected academic and professional:

“In Public Relations Theory in Practice, Penning does an excellent job providing an overview of the major theories applicable to public relations in easy-to-understand language I am impressed with the breadth of theories that are addressed. The book would be a valuable resource for an undergraduate theory course or as a resource for graduate students when they are seeking theories for a specific study. It would also be a good resource for practitioners preparing for the accreditation exam (APR).”

Marlene S. Neill, PhD,APR, Fellow PRSA 

Professor & Graduate Program Director

Senior Research Fellow, Arthur W. Page Center

Baylor University Department of Journalism, Public Relations & New Media

Public Relations Theory in Practice bridges the gap between academic theory and real-world application, equipping professionals with the knowledge to move beyond instinct and guesswork. Penning delves into communication, media, and persuasion and ethical theories, demonstrating how they can be strategically applied to every aspect of public relations. From understanding audiences to evaluating results, you’ll learn to craft campaigns with a theoretical foundation, ensuring effectiveness and achieving organizational goals. This book is a valuable source of insight and guidance for communicators at all levels.”

Eliot Mizrachi, VP, Strategy and Content, Arthur W. Page Society

Whether you are a public relations professional, student or professor, I hope you’ll find the book interesting and useful.

Has the AP Lost its Role as Standard for Writing?

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

It used to be called the “bible” of journalism, and as such was widely respected by those in public relations who wrote news releases and other items sent to reporters.

But the Associated Press Style Guide has gone from an annual spiral bound book to an online subscription site with email updates to something potentially irrelevant. The Associated Press (AP) has gone from covering news and guiding how news should be covered to making news of its own. It has gone from promoting an objective style to pushing subjective and partisan framing.

This came to a head when the Trump administration banned the AP from the White House briefing room after the organization refused to acknowledge a name change from the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. However, a variety of sources have reported that there is more to it than that, including the Wall Street Journal, Daily Signal, and Axios. Other reporting revealed that the AP receives funding from the far-left Omidyar Network. It has also been noticed that the AP never covered the fact that more than 400 reporters had their press pass revoked by the Biden administration. 

Apart from the Gulf of America naming issue, criticism of the AP’s drift into leftist partisanship has been growing over time. Examples include their guidance to capitalized Black but not white when referring to a subject’s race. Or their “Transgender Topical Coverage Guide” that warns not to include comments from experts that are contrary to the approved narrative—an example that shows a taking of sides and censorship of voices that is far removed from non-partisan objectivity on which the AP built its reputation.

I have heard that many PR firms and corporate communication offices are eschewing the AP in favor of their own house style. I also see in many actual newspapers a style that is different than that of the AP (this could be negligence more than protest, but the case remains). Of course the emergence of blogs and independent journalism means much writing has gone from 3rd person to first person voice and other deviations from standard AP style. I have decided to not let my AP subscription auto-renew, and will explain all this to future classes and let the adoption of the AP guide be optional.

Meanwhile, since the AP thinks it does not have to respond to formal name changes, I have seen some change the name of the AP from Associated Press to other options. These include American Pravda, Aggregated Propaganda, or Associated Partisanship. Its notable that some of the alternatives seem more accurate and objective.

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 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.