Begin rant.

What is it with all these angry memes aimed at the PR industry? Kill the press release, fire your PR firm, death to the embargo, all PR people are idiots etc.

Unlike other professions that simply ignore them (e.g., lawyers), we PR people love to jump on the bandwagon (me included) and share the crap out of these memes. Not because it does any good but because it informs everyone around us that we’re the ones doing it right: “It’s not me, it’s them.”

I presume the hope is that if the meme gets circulated enough the person who is doing it wrong is going to eventually wise up. That’s not likely.

The only way to correct the quality issues within the PR industry, is for the PR person who is doing it right to find the PR person who is doing it wrong and kill them. I don’t mean literally kill the person, just the way that person practices PR .

So how do we do this? We kill them with higher standards.

Part of the issue with PR is that anyone can claim to do it. There are no barriers to entry. No required certifications, no degrees, no “bar exams,” nada. We devalue the profession by not requiring a minimum level of proficiency. Some trade associations like the PRSA and IABC have discussed this issue at length but as far as I know there are no mandatory requirements.

Personally, I feel PR people should be required to have a Master’s Degree. This may sound extreme, but if we want PR to be taken seriously and have a seat at the executive table (next to the MBAs and JDs) then we need to have the proper credentials – ones that are universally recognized and accepted (esp. by non-communicators).

Now before you head down to the comment section to tell me that you didn’t need “credentials” to become a senior PR pro at a big agency, let me say this: This is not about you. It’s about creating a noticeable improvement in the overall quality of the profession as a whole. I believe this can be done by simply demanding more schooling from new PR hires.

So what do we do with all the idiots currently hurting the PR profession? Not much. Hopefully a new generation of better trained PR pros will surface and eventually replace them. But in the interim, support academics like Bill Sledzik and others like him. Invite them to speak at PR conferences or better yet at your Agency’s annual meeting. Get Bill to offer an online course in the Summer and make it mandatory for your junior PR staff. Pay them lots of money too. They deserve it.

Demand that Kevin Dugan and Richard Laermer write more posts at the Bad Pitch Blog. These guys are the only ones in my opinion who consistently blog about what’s wrong with PR in a constructive manner (e.g., using real examples etc.). By the way, these guys do this as a public service so throw them some coinage next time you pass their virtual home.

Lastly, if you know someone who’s a PR idiot, lend them a helping hand rather than circulate yet another anti-PR meme which does nothing but make the profession look bad.

End rant.

My friends over at Elasticity had an interesting experience with the newswires the other day. In an effort to make their content stand out they used humor to spice up a press release announcing a few new hires to their team. Part of their outreach strategy was to distribute it via the major newswire services. PRNewswire initially refused saying “the content was not appropriate for the wire” and BusinessWire wouldn’t run it without substantial edits. Update: According to Elasticity: “PR Newswire did a 180 and agreed to run as-is once they realized they could lose the business from our clients.”

What’s interesting here is that none of the key information in the press release was inaccurate or offensive. They even had received third party permission for use of quotes from folks like Jason Falls, Brian Solis and Chris Brogan. The main crime appears to be only that it was funny. And that apparently set off alarm bells throughout the editorial halls of BusinessWire and PRNewswire.

Now I’m certain this isn’t the first time humor has been circulated via the newswires. Recently, Conan O’Brien used PRNewswire to distribute a humorous announcement about his departure from NBC. Did they edit him? Did they find his content inappropriate? Of course not. Anyways, most of the content distributed daily via the newswires is so bad it is funny.

I’m not sure how many other incidents like this exist (please share in comments) but one thing is clear: if the newswires have an editorial policy please make sure humor doesn’t get the axe. In fact, by embracing it, it may save them from extinction.

Warning! This is not your typical top prediction post. Stock prices will rise and fall based on what is written below.

To increase the accuracy of our predictions we opted against using Google search. Instead, we turned to Alta Vista (when it takes a full 5 minutes to calculate your search results, you know that it’s so right). In addition, we consulted the works of L. Ron Hubbard and looked through Bill Gate’s trash. What we’ve discovered will leave you awestruck. No, dumbfounded.

So with that, we give you our top predictions for 2010 (in no particular order of importance or occurrence):

• College enrollment will plummet because students will learn everything they need to know from 500-word “How to” and “Top 10” blog posts.

• Hackers will discover that the Google search algorithm is the same as the recipe for Coke.

• The FTC will fund universal health care by fining people for disclosing that they are a social media expert.

• Chris Brogan will free Tibet by teaching the Dalai Lama how to use social media.

• Twitter will turn to the porn industry to make money (e.g., ‘tworn’).

• Facebook will modify its Terms of Service and Privacy Policy a dozen more times to confuse users into giving up their rights to everything.

• The PR industry will cease to annoy the media because there is no media.

• Unemployment rates will rise because of the things employees continue to share on social networks.

• The CDC will report the first case of H1N1 contracted via Augmented Reality.

• Aliens will forgo making first contact because TechCrunch refuses to honor their news embargo.

• Historians will discover that Pol Pot was the first person to say: “It’s all about the conversation.”

• Friendster buys Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.

Forward-Looking Statements Disclaimer:

This blog post may contain forward-looking statements as defined by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements present our expectations, beliefs, plans and objectives regarding the future of the world. Any discussions contained in this blog post, except to the extent that they contain historical facts, are forward-looking and accordingly involve outlandish lies, unfounded estimates, horoscopical assumptions, bad judgments and certain uncertainties.

This Halloween I was visited by a demon that has haunted me for decades. It was brought to mind by this Tweet from Tom Foremski, an old pro from the Financial Times: "Are there new rules for embargoes? I'm not sure if there are..."

If there's one subject that will always elicit a frothing response from me, along with politics and sports, it's embargoes. Whether it's the kind that restricts news or bans Cuban cigars, I would rise from my deathbed to vilify either atrocity.

Unfortunately, my expertise in international trade is limited to my eBay account, but I do know something about the media version. So much so, in fact, that I have been blamed personally for the ridiculous notion of "breaking embargoes on the Internet."

After I helped found News.com at CNET Networks in 1996, one of my responsibilities as managing editor was to codify our operating principles. It was early in the online news game, so stuff like linking, privacy, cyber-ethics, and "Netiquette" was virgin territory. One of the issues was embargoes.

Our policy was simple: We did not agree to them, except for extraordinary circumstances. And for doing this, News.com became a poster child for the perceived recklessness of online media at the time.

Let me say this for the record, in no uncertain terms: An embargo can be considered violated only if the recipient agrees to it in the first place.

For some reason, many companies and government agencies seem to think that simply receiving so-called embargoed material automatically means you have agreed to it--even if you never knew the information existed, let alone had consented to any restrictions, before it landed in your inbox or mailroom unsolicited.

It would be the equivalent of my mass-emailing a contract to sell my house for $10 million, then holding its recipients to the provisions of the "agreement." When they rightly tell me to go pound salt, I would cry foul and claim that they broke the rules.

Because News.com did not agree to embargoes, therefore, their restrictions did not apply to us. It's impossible to "break" a contract you never agreed to.

My objection to the concept began in the Washington Bureau of the Los Angeles Times in the 1980s, when government agencies routinely placed embargoes on information for no reason other than mindless bureaucratic process. After I expressed my dismay at the practice, a colleague told me a story about my then-boss, the national editor, Norman Miller.

When Miller was D.C. bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal years earlier, he found it ludicrous that the White House embargoed the federal budget in a post-Watergate capital known as much for its news leaks as it was for the Washington Monument and Marion Barry's crack pipe.

Half of his reporters had agreed to the embargo, while the other half didn't. You can guess what ensued--beat writers avoiding investigative reporters, staffers trying to eavesdrop on coffee-room chatter, leaks reported by some that got their co-workers in trouble. The frustrated Miller, as the story goes, just decided to break the embargo and run with the full budget report, to the outrage of the administration.

(Full disclosure: I never attempted to confirm the story with Miller for fear that he might debunk it, and I've been telling it ever since. But if you knew Miller, a former Navy prosecutor who won a Pultizer in the 1960s for exposing a huge scandal in commodities trading, you'd have no reason to doubt its veracity.)

Yes, I have heard all the reasons that ostensibly justify embargoes: giving everyone equal access, providing enough time to digest information and ask questions, etc. But to my mind, the only restrictions that hold any water involve national security, as in arrangements for Pentagon "pool reporting" or journalists embedded with troops on the front line. An embargo on a product release doesn't exactly rise to that level.

What makes far more sense in this age of equal opportunity for content is for companies to write and publish the news themselves in accurate and accessible stories, as opposed to the stilted and jargon-laden format of traditional press releases. If companies are truly concerned about accuracy and equal access, why not simply do it right the first time and release the information to the world simultaneously, with no restrictions?

Even if the previous arguments for embargoes were legitimate, they're at best obsolete. In the ethos of the web, as we should all know by now, nothing is off-limits. Besides, as my Beltway experience illustrates, I learned early in my career that the real motive for imposing embargoes is to retain as much control over the news as possible--just for the sake of doing so, not for any logical or practical reasons.

As for my being blamed personally for all this, it occurred most recently when I met an executive of a national PR agency last year. Upon learning that I worked for CNET, the first thing he asked was: "Why do you break embargoes?" The exasperation of my reply matched the impertinence of his question.

Bottom line: If you are a PR professional or a government communications officer who insists on trying to control the timing of information, do not send it unless you are sure that the recipient has a policy to agree to embargoes. Then contact your targeted reporters and bloggers directly and discuss the specific provisions.

But my advice is not to bother trying. And if your bosses won't budge on the subject, use this post to show what veteran journalists think of embargoes and why they're unnecessary.

Earlier this week, the FTC provided some additional guidelines on sponsored posts. The gist was this: If you fail to disclose your connection between advertisers and endorsers you could be looking at a fine of up to $11,000 per incident.

But it seems those additional guidelines may have been misinterpreted, according to a report yesterday by PRNewser. Quoting Richard Cleland, assistant director of the FTC, PRNewser reports:

“The root problem here is that reports that there is a monetary penalty for violating these guidelines is untrue. The FTC does not have the authority to impose a fine for a violation to the FTC act.” “We have never brought a case against a consumer endorser and we’ve never brought a case against somebody simply for failure to disclose a material connection.” “Where we have brought cases, there are other issues involved, not only failing to disclose a material connection but also making other misrepresentations about a product, a serious product like a health product or something like that. We have brought those cases but not against the consumer endorser, we have brought those cases against the advertiser that was behind it. If people think that the FTC is going to issue them a citation for $11,000 because they failed to disclose that they got a free box of Pampers, that’s not true. That’s not going to happen today, not ever.”

We’re not sure if that makes it all better, but it certainly seems that the guidelines have less “teeth” (see toon on right).

As we’ve written before, we think it would be best if the FTC minds its own business.

Have a good weekend!

As absurd as it may seem, the latest bureaucratic buffoonery aimed at regulating blogs should surprise no one. For years all branches of government have shown their ignorance in addressing fundamental aspects of the web, from antitrust lawsuits to obscenity cases, and this is just one more example.

To recap for those of you playing at home, the Federal Trade Commission is proposing guidelines that would hold bloggers accountable for fraudulent claims and disclosing conflicts of interest when writing about something that they might profit from.

In other words, the FTC wants to scrutinize blogs for doing exactly what magazines and newspapers have done for the last century or two.

What always seems to elude these debates is the fact that the medium at hand is simply an updated format of conveying information found in pulp or on the airwaves. News flash for the FTC: Newspaper editorial staffs derive some form of compensation in revenues from advertisers they routinely write about, whether they be restaurants, carmakers, or movie studios. So why don't their stories carry disclaimers every time one of these businesses is mentioned?

All this is painfully reminiscent of the way online journalists were viewed in the early days of the web. When we started up News.com at CNET in 1996, mainstream media condescendingly dismissed anything reported in digital form as incredible. We finally got over that, and now blogs--just another iteration of written content--are somehow being treated as an altogether new and dangerous medium.

"It's sort of a recognition that word-of-mouth marketing in whatever form, whether electronic or not, is a significant part of the marketing strategy of modern companies," Rich Cleland, assistant director in the FTC's division of advertising practices, told the Associated Press. "Because it's new, I think it is imperative that we provide some kind of guidance."

So what exactly is new, Rich? And when businesses persuade mainstream reporters to cover their products or services, while paying for advertising in their publications, that's not a "significant part of the marketing strategy of modern companies"?

What's truly different here isn't the medium, but the consumer. Rather than relying on traditional sources of information, people increasingly go to places like Yelp, TripAdvisor, and Amazon's reviews to get a smattering of views, and they most likely won't be shocked to learn that some are planted by interested parties.

Consumer attitudes have changed a bit since 1975--which, by the way, is the year that the FTC enacted the law on which the blogging rules are based. At some point, a modern definition of caveat emptor must become part of this conversation.

There's nothing wrong with suggesting full disclosure, which is a good idea for any medium as long as it's not a double standard. In fact, perhaps the most glaring omission in this whole discussion is that credibility is the true currency of content: Without it, no one will read anything you write for very long.

Here's a radical notion: Let the marketplace decide.

[Check out the Guhmshoo toon that originally accompanied this article]