"The CIPR has gathered together some of the UK’s foremost social media thinkers and contributors to provide input into the Institute’s policy guidance, education and training," says the Institute.
Headed by CIPR board member and Author of "Public Relations and the Social Web" Rob Brown, the panel will look at issues including online reputation development, convergence in marketing communications and best practice social media measurement.
This is an excellent initiative and more about it is available at Profile Extra.
Some panellists stand out. For my money these folk will be interesting contributors:
- Simon Collister - Head of Non-Profit and Public Sector, We Are Social (@simoncollister)
- Katy Howell – Managing Director, Immediate Future (@katyhowell)
- Stephen Waddington MCIPR – Managing Director, Speed Communications (@wadds)
The make-weights are headed by Danny Rogers – Editor, PR Week, who leads in the 'I don't understand' brigade and who hopefully will get a quick education to the extent of their abilities.
Whether Wadds and Simon are able to move this group out of the 'social media' rut is a mute point. We have to remember that social media is 28 years old this year and is only a tiny component in the effects of ubiquitous interactive communication. It is worth noting that the President of the Institute limits the remit of the panel to “A core theme in our three-year strategic plan ... social media and the impact on the public relations profession."
This may be because she wants the Institute to look at the internet effect more fundamentally elsewhere. I hope so. Certainly it was a core part of the CIPR/PRCA Internet Commission almost exactly 10 years ago which is recorded in the Journal of Communication Management - vol 6 No 1.
Only this week, we have seen just one example of the extent of these influences. Agence France-Presse, Associated Press, dpa, the Press Association, and Thomson Reuters will support standards that will provide news agencies, PR agencies, CIPR, PRCA , IABC and other vendors (and a minority of PR teachers in universities) with a uniform method of exchanging multimedia news content. Of course, under the old regime, the PR initiative that was part of this development, XPRL, died for lack of sympathy for anything more technical than closing an envelope with its invitation to another CIPR award party.
The alternative view is that the CIPR has mandated this committee to do no more than work out a recommendation for the application of Facebook for selling chocolate Easter eggs - and monitoring the number of 'fans'. My issue is not that media channels do not affect behaviours as well as attitudes, emotions and more. They do. It is not that we do not need excellent technicians in media relations and notably beyond the press,radio, TV, blogs, Facebook and Twitter. We do. We also need strategist who can work on the effective and affective application of these techniques. The solution is simple: get the craft teaching universities to turn out 22 year olds who can do that.
Much more significant for grown up Public Relations is the significance of the internet on communication; its influence in relationships and its capability to change reputation, which affects the value of what organisations are and do. For those who have read Shirky and Benkler there are the other issues about how quickly the nature of IP and corporate structure will morph into different forms of relationship dependent wealth development.
This does mean that XML, semantic web, values management, transparency, porosity and internet agency and other 21st century developments are core issues (not wholly ignored by many senior practitioners or all academics in the past, it should be noted) . However, it may be this is: too big for the CIPR; it wants to ignore past attempts to add some sense of digital influences or that it, in really, or wantonly, wants to cede the real issues to others.
Rob Brown's committee has to draw the line in the sand. Where might this be, I wonder.
As a CIPR Fellow, I am agog.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteI think the group is more than ready to move beyond a "how to" for setting up a Facebook page :-)
Per my blog post this evening (http://bit.ly/8ZOndc) I'm inviting the group to a meeting on the 21st April to discuss two ontologies I consider are required of the PR industry in our preparation for and transistion to a Semantic Web (and you will know of our work in this regard from a comment of mine on an earlier post of yours of course).
Please regard this comment as an invitation to join us.
Best regards.
You're right: this is important. But rather than fighting old battles, why not focus on one core concept? What does 'semantic PR' mean (PR with meaning)?
ReplyDeleteWhat I find interesting in light of your comment regarding "get(ting) the craft teaching universities to turn out 22 year olds who can (work on the effective and affective application of these techniques)" is that there isn't a single academic on the panel. Some panellists do have links to universities, but that's not the same as being involved on a day-to-day basis with designing courses, teaching, assessing and researching.
ReplyDeleteAs Das and Beckett (2009) observe ( http://www.polismedia.org/workingpapers.aspx ), the idea that students and young people are 'digital natives' can be something of a myth. Thus, ensuring that students leave university with the skills needed by industry (and can relate them to theories, models and issues) is sometimes a fairly complex task, and understanding (and debating) the thinking behind industry needs is often as valuable when we teach as knowing what the industry wants.
As always the network wins.
ReplyDeleteThank you all for your comments.
Philip, thank you for your very kind offer. Of course, I would be delighted but would not want to embarrass the members I have so roundly criticised (and for so many years)and as Richard says, it is time to stop looking at the abysmal track record (and half of the tweets on the subject seem to be breathing a single sigh of relief) and move on.
The committee has people who are capable of putting their views clearly and, I guess, it is up to the Institute to serve its members one way or another.
Liz, your point is well taken. It is a shame that academia is not included and your point about being a digital native is perfectly made.
I nominate you, Richard and Philip Young.