As a student, many of my non-PR major classmates at Ohio University’s E.W. Scripps School of Journalism roll their eyes whenever PR is mentioned. The sole reason for this is that they are often mistake these PR “schmucks” for PR professionals. Unfortunately, because of that misconception, those same students are often unwilling to take PR courses or to learn more about the field. I certainly feel as though if PRSA could continue working toward a better definition of what PR encompasses–especially with the advent of social media–and incorporated that into the APR, the accreditation process could be held to a higher standard and taken more seriously.

However, as PR has dramatically changed in just the last four years I’ve been a student, it’s difficult to predict the future for an ever-evolving and ever-changing field. Here’s hoping that some sort of licensing or accreditation is given more pull in the future.

I, however, don’t believe we need Master’s degrees or more certifications. We need PR to be taught in business schools. Period.

While PR requires the skill, craft of writing well, it’s the only business discipline not taught in a business school. It’s no wonder that PR folks have a confidence crisis about their perceived value and fret over not being at the table with other business pros. Without a business background, they may not even understand the conversation at the table or how PR as a tactic and communication as a strategy can positively impact company, brand and bottom line.

Thanks for a post to push all of us into the conversation. Much appreciated. Jenny

The causes of bad PR are at two levels–the practitioner and the organization. Most bad examples can be traced back to individuals with no education (either formal degree, seminar, or working with a savvy PR supervisor). Sometimes organizational hierarchy, context, view of the PR function etc etc can limit PR. Also, “encroachment” by other functions gives a bad name to “PR” when it’s not being done by it–e.g. lawyers as spokespersons, marketers writing news releases like brochure copy etc.

I conclude by pointing out that Edward Bernays made an impassioned plea to license public relations near the end of his life–I believe it was in 2002 at the Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) conference. His reason was that too many “schmucks” were entering the field and giving it a bad name. But licensing never got far because it is too hard to define, too cumbersome to enforce, and too restrictive on an ever expanding field.

So, I just teach my students well and work with other educators and practitioners to “enhance the profession.”

Near the end of his life, Ed Bernays, frustrated over the evolution of public relations, actually became an advocate for licensing PR practitioners. But with licensing comes the need for government regulation. And with that comes 1st Amendment questions that pretty stop the discussion in its tracks. It ain’t gonna work.

I will say this: Some of the very best PR pros I have worked for an with over the years didn’t have PR degrees — or degrees in any related field. One came from English lit, another from philosophy, another from political science, and so on.

But it only takes one trip to a news-release distribution website to see that a whole lot of nonprofessionls are in charge of producing PR messages, many of them marketers who treat PR materials as they do advertising copy. Poorly written fluff reflects on all of us.

To Karen’s other point, where we also agree…

In a recent blog post, I talked about the opportunities in PR for those willing to represent fringe groups and causes. Karen is right, too often these are assignments that “trained PR” types reject. Too bad, as it’s important work that requires a commitment beyond what any corporate or agency PR person ever has to make.

I also see an unwillingness of PR majors to pursue careers in nonprofit because of the lower salaries. I guess when you have a pile of college loans, it’s hard to appreciate the psychic rewards!

One of the primary justifications for the existence of PR is that we help make sure all people get a fair hearing in the marketplace of ideas. As it stands now, big institutions that support that status quo (federal government, big corporations, etc.) already have an unfair advantage in that marketplace because they can afford to hire professional public relations advisers. In the case of the legal bar in the U.S., all clients get representation — if nothing else, through public defenders. There is no equivalent –no public opinion defenders– at the bar of public opinion. If you try to eliminate amateurs, who’s left to advocate for radical or unpopular causes? I absolutely agree with Ike that someone else shouldn’t get to decide who you can or cannot hire to represent or advocate for you in public discussion.

Accreditation and educational requirements could be used to create a specially-titled kind of PR person, but they wouldn’t stop ordinary (paid or unpaid) citizens from advocating for causes, ideas, candidates, etc., and often doing it badly. It’s messy, but it’s part of the deal.

Just kidding!

Public relations about making connections and sometimes there is just not one good way to do that. Press releases might work for one group and fail for another. Talking on the phone (whoa, who’s this dumbass?) might work in another instance. It’s not about streamlining and finding the optimum solution. It’s about thinking about how to reach an audience. Currently I work with a lot of audiences on a multitude of subjects (generalist) but soon may be focused on publicizing the efforts of a single group (specialist). I will have to adapt. That is the main thing PR must concentrate on; adaptation to new paradigms and tactics as they arise. And, most importantly, cultivating relationships along the way.