Tag: PR

A #GivingTuesday PR gift–The three Ls of non-profit fundraising

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

I know Giving Tuesday campaigns are already underway. But being on the receiving end of so many before noon today, I want to respond by giving some public relations advice. 

My thoughts are also influenced both by having worked for a good length of time in nonprofit public relations and as a professor doing research on public relations and nonprofit management and fundraising. 

My first thought is that there is a pro and con to even having a day called Giving Tuesday. The pro is isolating the nonprofit sector and providing a high visibility day to encourage charitable giving. The con is that any single nonprofit’s Giving Tuesday push is lost among all the others. 

So here are some thoughts about how to manage the public relations behind Giving Tuesday (maybe next year at this point) as well as all other fundraising efforts throughout the year. I used a simple alliterative 3-part list you can call the three Ls of giving appeals.

List. Before even sending and posting Giving Tuesday message appeals, it is vital to think about the recipient. General messages may work to a point, but segmenting the list is better. Manage your database of donors and use it strategically. 

Consider that some have given already this year, maybe more than once. What compels them to give again on Giving Tuesday, especially if their last gift was very recent? Consider that maybe donors gave for a variety of specific aspect of your mission. You could offer the option to designate a gift for something specific, or promote not just a gift to the organization but a specific effort that may be new or underfunded. 

Also think about the varied capacities to give, in varied amounts. You would not ask a college student to give $1,000 or more, and you wouldn’t want to ask a millionaire to give $10. Make a specific ask in an appropriate amount. 

Factoring in the above could lead to a strategy of multiple Giving Tuesday messages and hashtags. Ask for gifts to fund specific capital campaigns or program efforts. Ask specifically in terms of challenging a specific dollar amount.

Leverage.  Don’t enter the Giving Tuesday fray all alone. Leverage testimonials from regular donors or partners. A nonprofit partnering with a corporation and leveraging that company’s network can be powerful. It can even be a causer-related marketing campaign that benefits the company with a demonstrated Corporate Social Responsibility or community relations effort. 

A challenge—for ever dollar given a company or individual will match—is another way to leverage support in a way that makes Giving Tuesday a unique opportunity for donors and not just a hype day.  

Lore. Don’t just ask, tell stories. Demonstrate the impact of past funding, even how last year’s total specific amount from Giving Tuesday had an impact in accomplishing whatever is the mission of the nonprofit—provided a certain number of meals, gave a specific number of scholarships, build a specified number of homes. 

Tell these stories in the voices of those affected, let the message be from them and not just about them. Don’t just communicate need for money but show accountability in how it has been used in the past. Donors are no longer motivated by guilt but by opportunity for impact. Make accountability and mission paramount, not a fundraising goal. Let it be about those who benefit directly from the organization’s mission, not the organization’s need for funding. 

I love to see nonprofits succeed. I believe that being more strategic and specific in Giving Tuesday appeals will lead to more persuasive messaging and positive result. If that’s the case for your nonprofit, be sure to report those results with a thank you to all who gave. 

Home

It is Time to Return to a Discussion of Licensing Public Relations

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

The notion of licensing the public relations practice is as old as Edward Bernays, one of the field’s early practitioners and an advocate for licensure later in his career. Bernays died in 1995 at more than 100 years old. The debate about licensing PR seemed to pass with him.

But last weekend at the International Public Relations Research Conference, I and two co-authors resurrected the idea. Professor Tyler Page, of the University of Connecticut, and Professor Luke Caprizzo, of the University of Missouri, and I started talking about this a year ago. Page led the project  and we presented our case based on current issues with the practice, realizing other attempts to standardize practice have failed, and with an idea to conceive of and incentivize licensure similar to what is done other professions. 

[Humble brag: our paper earned the award for “Top Paper on the Conference Theme.”]

One reason for reconsidering licensure for public relations is the increasing problems and challenges of mis- and dis-information in our modern communication landscape. Also, the scope of PR work across all channels has intensified. We argue the field should seize the moment to take our civic, deliberative and democratic responsibilities seriously.

Another reason that now is the time to reconsider licensure is that accreditation in public relations (APR) has not proven to be the suitable compromise to debates about licensure. It was seen to be a good idea for being voluntary, not mandatory. Others praised the APR as something managed by the profession, and not the government, and that it would be similar to the PRSA Code of Ethics which moved to an inspiration vs enforcement model.

However, only some professionals seek APR. Until very recently, APR was only available to members of PRSA and others member organizations of the Universal Accreditation Board (UAB). But the APR as not been strongly advocated for by PRSA outside the profession itself to employers, and certainly not to the point of recognition by the government. In fact, there have been expressions of disappointment that PRSA does not require the APR for members to serve on its national assembly.

So, the time is now to reconsider licensure for the field. But what we advocate is partial licensure—meaning a license would not be required for all to practice. This has been the largest objection to licensure, that it would violate the First Amendment. Since public relations practice is so broad and includes many forms of speech and communications, it can’t be restricted. However, if certain practitioners want to be licensed they could, and they would do so with the proper incentive.

This is not unlike the field of therapy, in which social workers, marriage counselors and those who give mental health advice can be licensed and gain a special title and certain privileges. But this does not stop others, such as life coaches, from giving advice to people about their lives.

Therefore, we propose that the incentive for public relations professionals to be licensed would be privileged information. This would particularly appeal to senior level public relations professionals who engage in “counseling,” especially with senior management, and would now be able to engage in discussions that could not be subject to a subpoena to testify subsequently.

We point to case law to support this. The Supreme Court in Jaffe, Upjohn Co. v. United States, 1981 ruled that privilege may be extended when it serves both public and private interests. The private benefit for public relations professionals would be the ability to counsel honestly with leaders in difficult situations, and not be encroached on by lawyers who already have attorney-client privilege. The public benefit would be the ethical advice of public relations professionals who are more inclined to advise transparency and honesty for the court of public opinion vs diversion and silence to avoid a court of law. 

One objection to this idea is evidentiary loss. However, organizations have many paper trails before a public relations person would be brought in, similar to lawyers, and all of that prior communication could still be subject to discovery as evidence in any trial.

The idea is conceptual now, but we think the path forward will be just as with other professions—to go through the states. Once enough states have granted licensure to public relations professionals, it will become a federal reality. 

It may take time, but in the end it will be a benefit to organizational leaders who can take advantage of privileged counsel from public relations professionals as well as lawyers. As such it will also benefit society, public relations professionals, and the reputation of the profession itself. 

Should PR Expertise Be More Evident on Corporate Boards?

~ penningink ~ 1 Comment

This morning I presented some of my research about the presence of public relations on corporate boards. I’m presenting at the International Public Relations Research Conference in Orlando, and I’m sharing here a summary for this week’s Penning Ink post. 

I started thinking about the notion of PR on corporate boards because of reading more and more about corporations and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) factors in management and investing, and of course Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI).

All of those concepts are also discussed at length among public relations professors and professionals. It all relates to Stakeholder Theory, in which public relations as a function is concerned with all those who have a stake in, and can be affected by, an organization’s activities. CEOs are writing books about stakeholders, corporate purpose and related concepts. So with all this corporate emphasis on topics about which public relations professionals have developed interest, experience and expertise, I began to wonder about two fundamental questions:

1. Do corporate boards have members with public relations expertise?

2. Do corporate boards have committees focused on CSR, ESG etc?

I realized that how a board and its role is perceived can be a factor. Agency Theory would say the board role is monitoring executives. Resource Dependency Theory states that the board role is providing resources to a board and in turn the company. Either way, some PR savvy in our current climate would seem to be an asset to a corporate board.

To look into this, I examined the “Fortune Modern Board 25’” – companies that “ranked high on factors including expertise, diversity, and independence of board members as well as company ESG scores”. By that standard, this group of companies would be likely to value public relations expertise. I used publicly available date on company websites, annual reports, and LinkedIn profiles of board members. I looked at backgrounds of their board members and the mission and descriptions of their committees. 

Results:·     

  • Of 285 board corporate board members examined, 7 had PR-related experience
  • The PR experience was in government relations, community relations, serving as a chief marketing officer (CMO) or responsibilities for corporate communications
  • None had degree in public relations or accreditation (APR)
  • There were 110 total board committees for 25 companies; average of 4.4 per company
  • 10 of the committees had a focus or charter related to PR
  • Those committees with charge related to PR included environment, social, social responsibility, sustainability, corporate responsibility, consumer relationships, public affairs or public responsibility
  • The most common board committees were audit, finance, nominating, governance, compensation and leadership development

So, there was not a significant presence of PR either among board member backgrounds or the focus of their committees. I see three potential explanations for this as well as scenarios for the future of PR capacity on corporate boards:

1.     CEOs and board members and/or committees seek counsel of CCOs or other staff with PR a degree or experience. This may be something to study in the future to see if PR experts are involved at least in some way counseling companies on CSR, ESG and DEI.

2.     Board nominating committees recruit members with PR skills along with finance, law, and other traditionally favored backgrounds. In other words, they see the board role as not just about the industry they are in and the finances, but other factors in which public relations perspective is vital.

3.     Or, sadly, we may see a remaining status quo where boards seek and nominate members who look like themselves. They will see PR as something anyone can “do” and not as a unique management function in its own right. 

But we can’t wait for boards to act. Public relations professionals, in the academic language, need to “enact” a managerial versus tactical role and demonstrate their value to boards. For years, PR professors and professionals have claimed the profession needs a “seat at the table.” That table has been the C-suite; in the future it should also include the board.

Attitudes Mixed Among PR Students, Professionals and Employers About Value of Certificate and Accreditation in Public Relations (APR)

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

Professional organizations such as the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and others in the public relations field have created opportunities for formal professional credentials. There is the Certificate in Principles of Public Relations for students near graduation time, and for professionals there is Accreditation in Public Relations (APR).

However, perception of and participation in these professional credential opportunities is varied. I conducted surveys of public relations students and professionals to determine why people do or do not seek to attain these professional milestones. In addition, employers were surveyed to determine their awareness and perception of these professional achievements.

My partners in this project were John Forde, PhD, APR, Fellow PRSA, Professor at Mississippi State University, and Sharee Broussard, PhD, APR, Director of Public Affairs and Community Services at Mobile County, Alabama.

Results show students and professionals are more likely to consider practical external value (i.e. getting hired or promoted) than other idealistic personal motivations to pursue professional development achievements. Meanwhile, employers value professional credentials as nice to have but not necessary if candidates have proven experience.

Surveys were completed by 76 public relations students who had applied to take the Certificate in Principles of Public Relations; 68 students who were members of various student public relations organizations but had not applied for the certificate; 387 public relations professionals; and 45 employers who hire public relations employees. (All questions in the surveys were on 5-point scales).

Students who applied for the Certificate in Principles of Public Relations mostly were neutral or agreed that having the certificate would increase their chances of being hired (mean 3.3). However, they mostly disagreed or were neutral on whether their employer valued the certificate in the interview process (mean 2.5). 

Their comments reflect the disconnect between their own expectations and experience with actual potential and current employers:

  • “I don’t think the certificate added much to my education that my degree didn’t already offer.”
  • “The certificate has little value to employers often because they are unaware of the significance.”
  • “Most recruiters and employers did not know what my certification was, and therefore did not value it as I would have wished.”
  • “The certificate did not capture the attention of potential employers like I had hoped. Employers are more interested in applicable portfolio pieces related to the position you’re applying for.”
  • “The employers I interviewed with during my job hunt were either not aware of the Certificate in Principles of Public Relations at all, or did not consider it significant enough to bear an impact on their hiring decisions.”
  • “I don’t feel this certification has provided any value. I haven’t received any special consideration after obtaining the certification, nor have any prospective employers commented on it.”

Meanwhile, students who were members of PR groups but had not applied for the certificate were mostly not aware of the certificate—35 of 68 said they were “not at all” aware of it and 14 were only slightly aware (mean 2). Once it was explained to them and they were asked if they would seek the certificate, these students were mostly neutral or agreed (mean 3.3). They also were mostly neutral or agreed on whether the certificate would increase their chance of being hired or promoted (mean 3.67).

Professionals were more mixed with regard to perceptions of Accreditation in Public Relations. As a group they were very familiar with APR (mean 4.64), with 237 of respondents having earned APR and 134 not. Of those who were not yet accredited, they mostly agreed or were neutral about one day earning APR (mean 3.24). They mostly agreed (mean 3.6) that having APR would increase chances of being hired or promoted. 

Those with positive attitudes about APR spoke to demonstrating professionalism and commitment to the profession:

  • “I earned the APR to increase my PR knowledge and to have a credential that demonstrates my expertise to the world.”
  • “I earned it because my employer supported me in my journey, paid for the process and I wanted to prove to myself that I could do it. The process was a great learning and taught me where I had gaps and also gave me confidence in my capabilities as a professional.”
  • “I believe the APR credential is the true sign of a professional PR counselor. Each time I receive the maintenance letter, I’ve submitted it to my boss and received great responses.”
  • “I earned the APR to reinforce my knowledge and increase my credibility as a practitioner.”

However, professionals also had negative perceptions of the value and process of accreditation. Comments as to why they would not seek APR included:

  • “Do not agree that the title can be taken away from you if you choose not to be a member of a professional organization annually.”
  • “Cost, too cumbersome of a process to go through, and my company is not interested in having me earn it.”
  • “Not sure if employers or clients recognize the value; is the effort required worth the benefit received?”
  • “I met Edward L. Bernays in the 1980s when he was pushing APR. It was useless then and it’s useless today. No one I know in the public relations firm world pays any attention whatsoever to accreditation.”
  • “I don’t see a need. I think it works for some, but with 20+ years’ experience and an MA in Communications Management, it feels redundant. I also find that outside of the industry, people don’t really know APR to give it any value/weight.”

Hiring managers were mostly in the public relations field (62%) as opposed to general human resources (22%) or other functions (15%). This may explain why most were aware of the Certificate in Principles of Public Relations (mean 2.9) and APR (mean 4.1). All together the group was likely to consider general non-degree credentials about the same as APR when hiring, (mean 4), but they considered the certificate in particular less valuable (mean 3.5).

While hiring managers said they would consider the certificate and APR, their comments showed they only considered these credentials in the context of other factors:

  • “Many PR professionals who do not seem very competent have earned their APR, which dilutes the significance of that accreditation.”
  • “Hands-on, day-to-day, client-facing, problem-solving, real-world experience. plus knowing how to think and write tops all else.”
  • “The most important traits I look for are intelligence, work ethic and positive attitude. Letters behind the name are great, but it’s not the first thing I look for.”
  • “Certificates do not mean the candidate is more qualified.  Having the basic knowledge of public relations, experience (even if it’s from an internship) and willingness to learn will determine if they are the right person for the job.”
  • “I’m an EVP and have hired communications people here and at two other agencies as well as a top consulting firm and I can say these particular development resources have never once come up as being desirable things for a candidate to have. We look at all kinds of professional development examples not just those prescribed by PRSA. I think it’s largely due to the fact that so few PR practitioners are even in PRSA, and only 10% of them get any of these certificates. It’s just too small a pool of people to put any weight on it.”

It is especially hard to communicate the value of these credentials when PRSA does not promote them to employers and others outside the field. Also, PRSA received considerable criticism from members when they decided not to require APR for members to be representatives to the national assembly at the annual conference.

If there is a bottom line here, it is that students may expect the Certificate to help them get a job, but that employers either don’t agree or see it as just one factor when hiring. As for professionals, APR may have personal or intrinsic value but there is little evidence that it matters to employers. 

The Virtue of PR Pros Asserting Neutrality

~ penningink ~ 2 Comments

I was part of a webinar a few weeks ago on the topic of universities taking a public stand on social issues. I took a stand for not always taking a stand.

The individuals on the call were mostly other college professors, a representative of an academic publisher, and one college president. But what we talked about could broadly apply to all organizations when it comes to the popular current dilemma of whether or not to advocate a particular point of view on social issues.

I maintained that, in higher education in particular, universities should be what they were established to be—places of free expression on multiple issues and various perspectives on those issues. This is important to me because, as a conservative and a Christian, I am in the minority about many social issues on a college campus. I don’t expect endorsement or agreement, just mutual understanding. And I expect this for all—from each classroom to presidential proclamations.

I was pleased last year when several students—at both the undergraduate and graduate level—told me that my classes of all the ones they had taken were where they felt most able to express themselves. This is because I always look at every angle of a discussion, every side of an issue, with a goal of understanding it—not to elevate or rule out particular views. 

That’s what I was taught college should be. But we are in an era where people think the role of college is persuasion toward single viewpoints, versus a forum for all.

In fact, one person on the call asserted there is no neutrality. “Silence enables the oppressor,” she said. 

True to my point, I understand this notion, but I disagree with this over-generalized mantra that frames every issue as victim-oppressor. Only rarely is that true. Foucault reduced everything to power, Marx said everything requires revolution. I take a stand against extreme conclusions without empirical basis.

Yes, on some issues, it is important and there may be an obvious need to take a stand. If it is to articulate a mission, to be accountable to an action, or it is about something that can be seen as a universal normative value. But otherwise, leaders should resist the social pressure by a self-proclaimed morally-superior vocal group to choose sides.

That’s because most social issues are not reduced to fact vs misinformation. Most social issues have various opinions that are values based. People often marshal facts to support opinions, but both sides can produce consonant facts. The rub comes down to values, beliefs, and resulting principles.

Also, there is often nuance on issues that are too often framed as black and white. As one example, I have spoken with many Hispanics that abhor the term “Latinx,” preferring Latino or Latina. One woman on the call had a Black Lives Matter poster in her office and she was shocked when she was told to take it down. But of course, I told her, there are many Blacks who are critical of Black Lives Matter as an organization, even though they have obvious concerns about racism. But there is a diversity of opinion about racism’s scope and causes. And then there are people of all three Abrahamic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, Islam—whose opinion of sexual identity and behavior is guided by God in the Torah, Bible or Koran and not secular laws or cultural popularity. The Pew Research Center reported that 66% of Black Democrats believe whether someone is a man or woman is determined by their sex at birth. These are but a few examples of foregone conclusions being confronted with some alternative views and nuance.

Leaders of universities as well as organizations of any kind have some important things to think about when it comes to taking sides. 

Is it really the popular opinion?  A danger of taking a side is the perceived lack of authenticity, that it is being done as a virtue signal or responding to perceived public opinion and trying to appear current. Two recent articles point out the danger of this. Barton Swaim wrote an opinion in The Wall Street Journal about how the leftward tilt of business, entertainment media, tech companies, government, and news creates the “misinformation” of agreed-upon truth when there is actual variance. Meanwhile, PR Week recently had an article noting that only 7% of PR professionals identify as conservative and asked “Is PR too liberal for its own good?”

What is the objective? PR pros know that all communications should have some objective behind it. So, when taking a public stand, it would be good practice to ask why and toward what outcome. Do you seek to educate, or persuade, students, faculty, the community or others on an issue? They are all adults, capable of making up their own minds. A university should educate on the issue broadly to allow informed decisions, not make decisions proactively for people. Or do you seek to affirm some group or cause? It would be enough, and more appropriate, to declare non-discrimination. Is a public stand to provide comfort? Sometimes this is an act of good empathic leadership, but it should be done judiciously so it does not appear to coddle or pander. 

Consider the difference between Individual vs institutional neutrality. I don’t know if my colleague on the call was against individuals or organizations remaining silent. I understand the point that on really important issues it is hard to imagine persons having no opinion. But whether they personally articulate it is up to them. Compelled speech is as much a violation of free speech as denying it. A person may have good—i.e. civil—reasons to remain silent to maintain relationships. Institutions can think about this too. But that leads to the next point.

Responsibility and accountability. Ethicists make a distinction between responsibility, which is a duty to do or say something, and accountability is after the fact accepting blame or credit. Organizations should ask if they have a duty to choose a side on a public issue. But they should also consider consequences, unintended or not, of doing so. 

Discourse ethics. Discourse ethics would have us consider whether as an organization we are unfairly wielding power when taking a stand. Advocating one side of an issue may delight some students, faculty, donors and other publics of any organization. But the result would also be to implicitly discredit alternative points of view among those same constituent groups. This yields a spiral of silence, lack of dialogue, and resentment by those who do not think the public stance represents them but delegitimizes them

Tolerance vs endorsement. Organizations can note the difference between making a statement and taking a stand. The former could be an expression of tolerance, which welcomes all views without judgment and is virtuously neutral. Taking a stance is a judgment, and often crosses a line and subjectively chooses whom to support and whom to offend, who is included and who is not.

Mutual understanding vs. compliance. When universities and other organizations take public positions, it should be done to ensure open dialogue and mutual understanding. But too often these days, “diversity” has become an Orwellian leviathan. In the name of diversity, a monoculture of predetermined opinion is enforced. Woe to those who disagree. Talk about giving power to the oppressor. 

So yes, when it comes to maintaining neutrality, I’ll take that stand. These days, neutrality takes more courage.