A Compelling Vision: An Agenda for Reform
By Stuart Z. Goldstein
PRSA Member

(This letter was previously published on the PRSA Web site, September 2003.)

It would be a mistake and simplistic to think that the only challenge facing PRSA is one of broadened representation. The use of Accreditation as a barrier to leadership in the organization is only symptomatic of the larger issue of PRSA's continuing relevance as a trade organization.

The question we should all be focused on is one of vision. Technology continues to transform the media and the PR profession. We need new laboratories of innovation that will focus on the structure, strategies, staffing and methodologies consistent with the transformational change we're experiencing. We need PR professionals who think strategically and see themselves as a catalyst for change. And we need a trade organization that views itself as an advocate and leader of the profession. PRSA is challenged by whether it can rise to these needs and articulate a compelling vision for the future.

It would be unfortunate if my earlier letter was reduced to a public debate on Accreditation. As you know, the prism through which history is viewed becomes much clearer in hindsight. Today, these facts are just more self-evident. Accreditation is not the standard by which PR professionalism is judged in the business world. More important, it has drained resources and diverted attention from the more strategic issues challenging PRSA. The lack of senior corporate PR professionals on the PRSA board and participating in PRSA activities is a sign that they question the continuing relevance of PRSA. The alarm bell is ringing off the hook. The entire executive committee should recognize this trend will lead to the absence of senior professional involvement, sponsorship of staff attending PRSA activities, including conferences, and a significant loss in sources of funding for PRSA.

Whether Accreditation stays or goes is irrelevant beyond outside the network of folks who have the APR designation. Clinging to this issue ignores the fact that the rest of the world has moved on. The APR folks are talking to themselves, and their numbers will continue to dwindle. If these folks truly care about PRSA, they'd take pride in what they have accomplished as professionals but recognize that focusing on a new and compelling vision for the future is a much higher priority. Achieving that vision will require the best and brightest minds.

The lifeblood of any trade group comes from advocacy and innovation. PRSA is no different. We need an agenda for reform at PRSA that focuses members not on what we offer, but inspires them around why we exist.

I'm appalled, for example, by the recent portrayals of PR professionals in the movies. Whether it's Colin Farrell in "Phone Booth" or Al Pacino in "Simone," the image is one of PR folks as lying, conniving, sniveling, misrepresenting cheats, drunks and self-loathing characters. Most of us know only too well that more often than not, the PR professional is the most vocal advocate of disclosure and provides the external perspective (or serves as the behind the scenes flag raiser) on how the actions of individuals or companies will be viewed. Why isn't PRSA challenging these distorted views of public relations professionals? Why haven't we organized boycotts and appropriate letter writing campaigns to the film studios? Where is the indignation and outrage that says to the membership, PRSA will speak for you?

In the post-Enron era and as a result of Sarbanes-Oxley, PR professionals are being asked to sign-off on corporate financial statements. We don't originate the financial data, so how can we be asked to certify it? Some financial organizations are even requiring PR staff to take SEC exams (series 6 & 7) to keep their jobs. What is PRSA doing to challenge these invalid assumptions?

Why hasn't PRSA, after seeking broad input from members, come out with our profession's response to Enron and Sarbanes-Oxley? For example, calling on communications professionals to resign or become a whistle blower if they believe misconduct is going on (that would be very provocative for a group that is generally portrayed as putting "spin" on the truth). Or calling on regulators to use Plain English in promulgating new rules to govern financial disclosure (if you speak in jargon, you invite people to interpret rules to suit their immediate purpose, which may be contrary to the interests of shareholders).

Let's take a page from the Record Industry and Recording Artists Association. Setting aside whether you agree with their advocacy to restrict Napster, their efforts on this and other issues has solidified membership support. They know why the RIRAA exists and is valued.

Advocacy should be a primary focus of PRSA. The issues ought to be strategic in nature to the profession and be issues that aren't adequately represented through other advocacy groups.

Also, the advocacy should be in areas that enhance the image of the profession as well. For example, PRSA ought to sponsor one day a year for "communications advocacy," where professionals would lend their skill and writing talents on a pro bono basis to support and help those who are unrepresented or underrepresented in our society. Many PR professionals are engaged in these activities on their own, but consider what might be achieved through the power of a coordinated effort that engages and inspires others to join in.

The second major front challenging PRSA is their unique ability to be the sponsor of innovation in the field of communications. PRSA should be building bridges between academia and real world professionals to create laboratories of innovation, where new methodologies can be tested, analyzed and proven.

In the private sector, for example, the structure of a corporate communications group has not materially changed in 20 years. However, technology continues to transform the quantity, speed and quality of how information flows. It has also leveled the playing field of who can influence the media. These trends have significant implications for how corporate communications departments should be structured and staffed. They have implications for the growing importance of perception research and technology to assess and guide communication strategy.

But no one has focused on these issues. The practitioner is focused on their day-to-day priorities and surviving in the tough economic environment. The academic community, while interested, doesn't normally have access or sponsorship to find practitioners willing to experiment with change. Large-scale PR firms have attempted some experimentation, though little information is shared or codified. Ironically, the primary source of innovation in PR most often comes out of the realm of politics and the laboratory of a political campaign.

As a sponsor of innovation, PRSA has the chance to provide leadership in helping shape the profession well into the next century. The involvement of the corporate PR executive will be critical to attaining this goal, since these laboratories of innovation and academic research will need funding sources.

PR colleagues who over time have strived to enhance the image of our profession should be applauded, including those who originally championed Accreditation. However, the dynamics of our profession have changed, are changing and will continue to do so. We desperately need a trade group like PRSA to wake up to the realities of the marketplace.

My objective through this letter and my previous letter posted here is to jump start a more open and vigorous discussion about PRSA's direction. The question now is whether others will do likewise and help foster a more compelling vision for the future of PRSA - and the profession.

Stuart Z. Goldstein
Managing Director
Corporate Communications
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
New York, N.Y.

About the Author:
Stuart Z. Goldstein is Managing Director, Corporate Communications at The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation in N.Y. His 20+ years of experience cuts across the disciplines of corporate communications and public affairs, including serving as a spokesperson at two Fortune 500 companies. He also spent a decade running political campaigns in New Jersey. He can be contacted at sgoldstein@dtcc.com.

back to Table of Contents