We now live in world where instant comments get instantly recycled and attract instant criticism. Take England's very own little Jack Wilshere and the mini-media storm he created with his - "only English people should play for England" and "living here for five years doesn't make you English" remarks.
Of course, Little Jack got a whole bunch of Little Englander criticism, the oh-so self righteous Mr Kevin Pietersen leading the way. That in turn caused others to spring to his support but if he's not careful, he could also find himself being used as a potential poster boy for some of the unpleasant elements of national pride.
The truth here, is that to expect a 21-year footballer to speak rationally, coherently and intelligently off-the-cuff to a journalist on a topic that is highly emotive and complex - and is fraught with problems for even an experienced politician - is simply asking too much. He should not be put in the position and the FA should have seen this one coming.
Manager Roy Hodgson was on Match on the Day the proceeding Saturday and was gently asked about the same issue after the starring performance of Man Utd's talented young Albanian born, Belgian-raised, potentially England qualified Adnan Januzaj. Roy's response was measured - ruling nothing in and nothing out. Roy's answer was something along the lines of - "we'd have to look at it if the situation were to arise, but it would be a big decision to go down the residency route and we'd need to consider that carefully before doing it".
Roy didn't get many headlines, other than to say he did not rule out selecting young Adnan; but Roy wasn't looking for headlines - he was looking for a way out, and found it. Little Jack wasn't after headlines either, but he got them and it was all so predictable.
Maybe the FA did give Jack some advice on how to answer what was an obvious question, but it didn't seem like it and three or four days later the management were still trying to deal with the fall-out from an honest but ill-thought through response to something that was easy to see coming and relatively easy to deflect.
In the run-up to a couple of absolutely vital World Cup fixtures; I would have thought that the FA could have done without the distraction. I'm sure Jack Wilshere could have done without the attention - and the FA's PR team should have ensured that was the case.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Friday, October 04, 2013
Enough cobblers - let's get working
As the old saying goes: cobblers children always have the worst shoes. The idea being that if the customers come first, the kids therefore must have come last - and what's more, Daddy didn't like to take his work home with him so to speak.
The same can be said of PR. For a group of professional people in the business of reputation, we have a pretty poor reputation.
As representative organisations of the profession, the CIPR and the PRCA are at least partly responsible for addressing that poor reputation; and there are plenty of people (I would be one of them) who would argue that - in the past - neither organisation has done enough.
Of course, given that I had my turn in the leadership chair at the CIPR, plenty of people would also argue that I must be prepared to shoulder some of the responsibility for that failure to address the profession's reputation. Fair point.
But as I have argued elsewhere, and in my 2103 election candidate statement, my intention to campaign on our reputation during my Presidency was hi-jacked by the financial and managerial issues that arose shortly after I took up the chair. There's no point going over all that again. And the truth is, we were not ready in any case.
What I will say again however, is that the CIPR is better placed than ever-before to tackle this issue. Financially strong and stable, and with a recent track record of leadership in social and digital media, the Institute is in good health. What's more, in Stephen Waddington, we also have an incoming President who has a leadership voice that reaches beyond the Institute's normal heartland - Stephen has some 11,000 Twitter followers, and that's more than the number of voting members of the Institute.
There's more good news too. Some 15 people have thrown their hat into the ring to win one of seven seats on the CIPR Council. That's 15 individuals who want to support and help the profession. If you read their statements the passion to get involved is both apparent and admirable.
So, I want to be part of a new and concerted drive to promote our profession, our skills, our value and -above all else - to improve our reputation. We will not do it in Stephen's one year; we will not do it in the three-year term I hope to have on the Council; but we must make a fresh and invigorated start and now is the time.
It's time to fix up our shoes - and give them a bloody good polish. Vote for me, and I promise to work hard and do my bit on your behalf to improve our professional standing.
The same can be said of PR. For a group of professional people in the business of reputation, we have a pretty poor reputation.
As representative organisations of the profession, the CIPR and the PRCA are at least partly responsible for addressing that poor reputation; and there are plenty of people (I would be one of them) who would argue that - in the past - neither organisation has done enough.
Of course, given that I had my turn in the leadership chair at the CIPR, plenty of people would also argue that I must be prepared to shoulder some of the responsibility for that failure to address the profession's reputation. Fair point.
But as I have argued elsewhere, and in my 2103 election candidate statement, my intention to campaign on our reputation during my Presidency was hi-jacked by the financial and managerial issues that arose shortly after I took up the chair. There's no point going over all that again. And the truth is, we were not ready in any case.
What I will say again however, is that the CIPR is better placed than ever-before to tackle this issue. Financially strong and stable, and with a recent track record of leadership in social and digital media, the Institute is in good health. What's more, in Stephen Waddington, we also have an incoming President who has a leadership voice that reaches beyond the Institute's normal heartland - Stephen has some 11,000 Twitter followers, and that's more than the number of voting members of the Institute.
There's more good news too. Some 15 people have thrown their hat into the ring to win one of seven seats on the CIPR Council. That's 15 individuals who want to support and help the profession. If you read their statements the passion to get involved is both apparent and admirable.
So, I want to be part of a new and concerted drive to promote our profession, our skills, our value and -above all else - to improve our reputation. We will not do it in Stephen's one year; we will not do it in the three-year term I hope to have on the Council; but we must make a fresh and invigorated start and now is the time.
It's time to fix up our shoes - and give them a bloody good polish. Vote for me, and I promise to work hard and do my bit on your behalf to improve our professional standing.
Friday, September 20, 2013
#don't-forget-the-eight
So with 15 people standing for seven seats on the CIPR Council, the majority of the candidates are going to be disappointed after the election results are announced.
In a nice note to all candidates today, Phil Morgan from the CIPR thanked everyone for standing and made an early plea for those who end up disappointed to stay engaged and try again.
I'd like to take that idea a little further and ask the incoming CIPR President, Stephen Waddington, and the rest of the Board and senior management to give some thought to the unlucky eight and consider whether there are any roles within the agenda for 2014 that could do with some more volunteers. I don't know exactly what initiatives and programmes Stephen has in mind, but I am sure his year in office will not simply be business as usual.
My request therefore - on behalf of myself and I hope my 14 fellow-candidates - is that when you are in post Stephen, don't forget the eight. And if there is way to involve non-Board and non-Council members in an initiative or working party; I think you will find some very willing volunteers in the eight.
Of course I very much hope to be one of the seven; but if I'm not - you know where to find me and I'm happy to help.
In a nice note to all candidates today, Phil Morgan from the CIPR thanked everyone for standing and made an early plea for those who end up disappointed to stay engaged and try again.
I'd like to take that idea a little further and ask the incoming CIPR President, Stephen Waddington, and the rest of the Board and senior management to give some thought to the unlucky eight and consider whether there are any roles within the agenda for 2014 that could do with some more volunteers. I don't know exactly what initiatives and programmes Stephen has in mind, but I am sure his year in office will not simply be business as usual.
My request therefore - on behalf of myself and I hope my 14 fellow-candidates - is that when you are in post Stephen, don't forget the eight. And if there is way to involve non-Board and non-Council members in an initiative or working party; I think you will find some very willing volunteers in the eight.
Of course I very much hope to be one of the seven; but if I'm not - you know where to find me and I'm happy to help.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Statistics and the CIPR election
We all know that statistics can often be twisted to make an argument. It's usually as much about what you don't say as it is about what you report. So what to make of the 2013 CIPR elections? Unless there are any last-minute hitches, the President-elect will be Sarah Pinch; the Treasurer, Dave Sanders. Both are standing for election unopposed. Does that mean the Institute is losing its relevancy and appeal to members? I think not - though I expect some critics might seize upon that statistic.
That debate will ignore the fact that the officer positions demand a lot of time - I should know, I've done them both. Standing for those is a big decision, but in recent years we have seen two and even three-way battles for the Presidential position so the appeal remains. Sarah and Dave are also great candidates - both would have had my vote and had already received my nomination. What's more, others with ambition for those posts might have held back; preferring to support and not stand against a candidate they respected. It is not a black and white argument.
Elections are of course good for the Institute - but so is having good candidates in the post and the CIPR will be well served by both Sarah and Dave.
So in terms of the level of interest and support for the CIPR, I prefer therefore to look at the candidates putting themselves forward for election to the Institute's Council, myself included. Many of them are looking to get involved at a national level for the first time - others are looking to remain engaged or, like me, are seeking to return to the table.
There are seven available seats in this year's CIPR Council election, and I am one of no fewer than 15 people to have put their hat in the ring for a three-year term. That is an impressive level of commitment and strong evidence that there is no shortage of people who hold the CIPR in high enough regard to want to get involved.
That is the statistic I find more illuminating than the unopposed elections for the two officers.
What's more - the list of candidates is impressive and members face a very difficult choice selecting their seven picks. I know many of those standing, but others are new to me so I invite them to get in touch via this blog or by twitter using @telecomtails.
As I said, elections are good and we have one for seven important seats on the Institute's Council. If you have a vote; please use it. And if you'd like to vote for me, I'd be most grateful.
That debate will ignore the fact that the officer positions demand a lot of time - I should know, I've done them both. Standing for those is a big decision, but in recent years we have seen two and even three-way battles for the Presidential position so the appeal remains. Sarah and Dave are also great candidates - both would have had my vote and had already received my nomination. What's more, others with ambition for those posts might have held back; preferring to support and not stand against a candidate they respected. It is not a black and white argument.
Elections are of course good for the Institute - but so is having good candidates in the post and the CIPR will be well served by both Sarah and Dave.
So in terms of the level of interest and support for the CIPR, I prefer therefore to look at the candidates putting themselves forward for election to the Institute's Council, myself included. Many of them are looking to get involved at a national level for the first time - others are looking to remain engaged or, like me, are seeking to return to the table.
There are seven available seats in this year's CIPR Council election, and I am one of no fewer than 15 people to have put their hat in the ring for a three-year term. That is an impressive level of commitment and strong evidence that there is no shortage of people who hold the CIPR in high enough regard to want to get involved.
That is the statistic I find more illuminating than the unopposed elections for the two officers.
What's more - the list of candidates is impressive and members face a very difficult choice selecting their seven picks. I know many of those standing, but others are new to me so I invite them to get in touch via this blog or by twitter using @telecomtails.
As I said, elections are good and we have one for seven important seats on the Institute's Council. If you have a vote; please use it. And if you'd like to vote for me, I'd be most grateful.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Time to stand up again
I cannot claim to be a frequent blogger. The opposite in fact and I have tremendous admiration for those that can find both the time and the inspiration. But I do enjoy the process and I resolve to try harder and be a better blogger. For starters - I have found a cause.
The last time I blogged - it was in support of a CIPR election candidate. This time,I am supporting myself. After a four-year absence from the CIPR's affairs, I have elected to stand for a seat on the council. Why? I feel I have unfinished business. Let me be clear about one thing - I have no individual leadership ambitions. I served my time as treasurer and then President and the baton has been firmly passed from that point of view.
But I do still have ambitions when it comes to industry leadership - and that's where the unfinished business lies.
When it came to my turn in the Presidential (very) hot seat; the CIPR was about to begin an almost two-year period of crisis, cutbacks, re-structuring and re-building. I'm proud of what we did during that period and the strong CIPR that emerged. I was part of a great team of elected officers that rolled their sleeves up and got on with the job of regenerating the Institute - myself, Sally Sykes, Paul Mylrea and, especially, Jay O'Connor gave up enormous amounts of time and did what needed to be done.
But becoming involved in a corporate governance and re-structuring process was not exactly what I had in mind for my tenure as President. I wanted to the Institute to prove its worth and relevance to its members across the country and for the profession to be much more vocal about its achievements than had been the case. I wanted organisations large and small - whether commercial, public or not-for-profit - to respect and take advantage of the power of PR.
I wanted to help resurrect old PR values in a modern world - after all who could possibly object to "a planned and consistent programme of communication between an organisation and its publics" - why should that be dismissed as "spin" or "fluff".
This year's CIPR President, Sue Wolstenholme, has sought to bring academic rigour and discipline to the profession's image and the practice of PR. The groundwork has been done and the Chartered Practitioner status is a hard won accolade. Now we need to get even more vocal.
Next year, Stephen Waddington takes the chair and will hit a different audience with his strong social media following. Now, we are in the position to take much better advantage of that ground work and I want to be part of that campaign from the inside.
I feel I still have something to offer. And now it will be up to the membership to decide whether to give me that chance. Here's hoping, and also asking, for your vote.
The last time I blogged - it was in support of a CIPR election candidate. This time,I am supporting myself. After a four-year absence from the CIPR's affairs, I have elected to stand for a seat on the council. Why? I feel I have unfinished business. Let me be clear about one thing - I have no individual leadership ambitions. I served my time as treasurer and then President and the baton has been firmly passed from that point of view.
But I do still have ambitions when it comes to industry leadership - and that's where the unfinished business lies.
When it came to my turn in the Presidential (very) hot seat; the CIPR was about to begin an almost two-year period of crisis, cutbacks, re-structuring and re-building. I'm proud of what we did during that period and the strong CIPR that emerged. I was part of a great team of elected officers that rolled their sleeves up and got on with the job of regenerating the Institute - myself, Sally Sykes, Paul Mylrea and, especially, Jay O'Connor gave up enormous amounts of time and did what needed to be done.
But becoming involved in a corporate governance and re-structuring process was not exactly what I had in mind for my tenure as President. I wanted to the Institute to prove its worth and relevance to its members across the country and for the profession to be much more vocal about its achievements than had been the case. I wanted organisations large and small - whether commercial, public or not-for-profit - to respect and take advantage of the power of PR.
I wanted to help resurrect old PR values in a modern world - after all who could possibly object to "a planned and consistent programme of communication between an organisation and its publics" - why should that be dismissed as "spin" or "fluff".
This year's CIPR President, Sue Wolstenholme, has sought to bring academic rigour and discipline to the profession's image and the practice of PR. The groundwork has been done and the Chartered Practitioner status is a hard won accolade. Now we need to get even more vocal.
Next year, Stephen Waddington takes the chair and will hit a different audience with his strong social media following. Now, we are in the position to take much better advantage of that ground work and I want to be part of that campaign from the inside.
I feel I still have something to offer. And now it will be up to the membership to decide whether to give me that chance. Here's hoping, and also asking, for your vote.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Election time again
It seems the CIPR election is an event that causes me to dust off the blog and give voice to an opinion. So - with the acknowledgement that I have been the most inactive of bloggers, and a promise that I will try to do better - here we go again.
This year's CIPR election features very different candidates. One new, one returning.
This will be the third time my friend Lionel Zetter has stood for election. The first time he beat me but I bear him no ill will. I had my turn two years later. The second time Lionel stood (last year) he lost out to Sue Wolstenholme. The other candidate is Miti Ampona. I do not know Miti as well as I know Lionel but I got the chance to meet with her and see her in action when I hosted the CIPR TV debate between the two candidates.
I was cast in the role of independent host, rather than inquisitor. That was just as well because I would have found it very difficult to stay on the fence as an interrogator rather than the conduit for questions from those watching.
Let me explain why.
Lionel's platform is a populist one. It is about working closer with other industry bodies - notably the PRCA. I am very much in favour of that closer co-operation and of finding ways to act as one voice. Where I differ from Lionel is that I do not support a merger or - to use the term favoured by Lionel in the debate - a "re-unification". I think that re-unification or merger is a "clarion call" that will have appeal, but that it is ultimately a call that should not be followed and an objective that cannot be delivered.
The CIPR's Chartered status was earned over many years of campaigning. It was a hard-won accolade that Lionel himself describes as our Gold Standard. It is granted by the Privy Council to the CIPR as an organisation. Were the CIPR to merge with the PRCA, the new organisation would not automatically assume that Chartered status. It is not in the gift of the CIPR to transfer it to a new body. My understanding of the situation is that it would almost certainly be lost.
The only way, I believe, for the Charter to remain in force following a re-unification, would not be a merger; but an acquisition of the PRCA by the CIPR. The CIPR would subsume the PRCA and would then need to convert its organisational members into individual members at whatever level was appropriate for each individual. I cannot see that happening in any way.
Let me repeat. I support Lionel's call for greater co-operation between the two parties. But alongside that I would call for more differentiation and areas of clear water between an organisation that it is a professional body for individual members with qualifications, ethics, and lifelong learning at its heart; and a trade body which should be proud of acting in the best commercial and professional interests of its member businesses.
There is plenty of room for co-operation. When I was President I even raised the concept of jointly outsourcing some back office elements of the two organisations. But I always believed we needed two distinct front doors.
Sadly, I think Lionel realises and actually respects the barriers the Charter presents to re-unification. I think for the purposes of winning the election, he is choosing to ignore them and present a simpler message. I think that is misleading and that is why I cannot support him at this election.
Which brings me to Miti. Her performance in the debate, in the #CommsChat on Twitter, and in her election correspondence has been a little idealistic and to my mind underestimates the challenge of one-year Presidency. I know only too well how much your term and your ambitions can be hijacked.
But I do not doubt her ambition or her drive to do "the right thing" and to try to increase the profile and standing of the organisation. I wish her well in that process and offer my help in any way I can - starting by putting my vote in her camp.
And Lionel, despite the words above - should you win, you too will have my support in striving for a more united profession; as long as we make sure to stop well short of merging and we protect the Chartered status.
This year's CIPR election features very different candidates. One new, one returning.
This will be the third time my friend Lionel Zetter has stood for election. The first time he beat me but I bear him no ill will. I had my turn two years later. The second time Lionel stood (last year) he lost out to Sue Wolstenholme. The other candidate is Miti Ampona. I do not know Miti as well as I know Lionel but I got the chance to meet with her and see her in action when I hosted the CIPR TV debate between the two candidates.
I was cast in the role of independent host, rather than inquisitor. That was just as well because I would have found it very difficult to stay on the fence as an interrogator rather than the conduit for questions from those watching.
Let me explain why.
Lionel's platform is a populist one. It is about working closer with other industry bodies - notably the PRCA. I am very much in favour of that closer co-operation and of finding ways to act as one voice. Where I differ from Lionel is that I do not support a merger or - to use the term favoured by Lionel in the debate - a "re-unification". I think that re-unification or merger is a "clarion call" that will have appeal, but that it is ultimately a call that should not be followed and an objective that cannot be delivered.
The CIPR's Chartered status was earned over many years of campaigning. It was a hard-won accolade that Lionel himself describes as our Gold Standard. It is granted by the Privy Council to the CIPR as an organisation. Were the CIPR to merge with the PRCA, the new organisation would not automatically assume that Chartered status. It is not in the gift of the CIPR to transfer it to a new body. My understanding of the situation is that it would almost certainly be lost.
The only way, I believe, for the Charter to remain in force following a re-unification, would not be a merger; but an acquisition of the PRCA by the CIPR. The CIPR would subsume the PRCA and would then need to convert its organisational members into individual members at whatever level was appropriate for each individual. I cannot see that happening in any way.
Let me repeat. I support Lionel's call for greater co-operation between the two parties. But alongside that I would call for more differentiation and areas of clear water between an organisation that it is a professional body for individual members with qualifications, ethics, and lifelong learning at its heart; and a trade body which should be proud of acting in the best commercial and professional interests of its member businesses.
There is plenty of room for co-operation. When I was President I even raised the concept of jointly outsourcing some back office elements of the two organisations. But I always believed we needed two distinct front doors.
Sadly, I think Lionel realises and actually respects the barriers the Charter presents to re-unification. I think for the purposes of winning the election, he is choosing to ignore them and present a simpler message. I think that is misleading and that is why I cannot support him at this election.
Which brings me to Miti. Her performance in the debate, in the #CommsChat on Twitter, and in her election correspondence has been a little idealistic and to my mind underestimates the challenge of one-year Presidency. I know only too well how much your term and your ambitions can be hijacked.
But I do not doubt her ambition or her drive to do "the right thing" and to try to increase the profile and standing of the organisation. I wish her well in that process and offer my help in any way I can - starting by putting my vote in her camp.
And Lionel, despite the words above - should you win, you too will have my support in striving for a more united profession; as long as we make sure to stop well short of merging and we protect the Chartered status.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Inside or outside the tent?
After the Cameron Euro veto we now have the PRCA UKPAC walkout.
When David Cameron said "Non" last weekend he gained a boost in popularity and triggered a wave of hand-wringing that will last far longer than the boost.
So what of the PRCA - is there any courting of popularity or public opinion bounce behind its move? I rather think so.
The decision to walk away from UKPAC came hard on the heels of the lobbying industry taking another major hit with the Independent's sting against Bell Pottinger. The PRCA says the decision is unrelated. Indeed, CEO Francis Ingham makes the point strongly in a heated debate on the PR Week podcast with Keith Johnston.
Now while I accept that a week is a long time in politics, how about this sequence of events.
Defending the reputation of lobbyists and attacking politicians in his blog on the PRCA website on December 6th, Ingham writes:
"We believe that since the PRCA and APPC merged our registers, and the CIPR reintroduced theirs, all under the auspices of UKPAC, that body is the quickest, and most effective route to deliver enhanced regulation."
The Independent Bell Pottinger story broke that day and triggered a wave of protests and even an official PRCA member complaint and professional practices enquiry.
On December 9, the PRCA resigns from UKPAC, and in a letter to Ministers, Ingham writes:
"We have come to the reluctant conclusion that UKPAC is simply not the right vehicle to deliver the statutory register which is the Government's aim."
My word - what happened between December 6's "quickest and most effective route" and December 9's "not the right vehicle". It can't be the Bell Pottinger story because we are assured the action was not related.
I think the phrase that most readily springs to mind is: "Pull the other one".
Personally and politically, I can see all sorts of reasons for what is effectively a trade body for business, to take the actions it believes are necessary to best protect its members interests when they are under threat. The argument goes: If UKPAC is about to be seen by Government as not fit for purpose, then let's get out now and get our criticism in first.
OK, so UKPAC is not perfect. And UKPAC may well get some Government criticism. But there were three PR and Public Affairs industry groups working together to try to make it better and one has decided to flee the scene and leave the others to answer questions.
Like children caught by the broken window, perhaps the other two should say - "It wasn't us that broke it, another kid did it and ran away".
But seriously, surely the place to be for any trade or professional body in this area is inside the tent working for a solution, not outside it.
And, much like Mr Cameron, I do believe that pressure from all around will bring the PRCA back to the table to work with the other players. I certainly hope so - our industry is much stronger if all the voices unite and fight together.
When David Cameron said "Non" last weekend he gained a boost in popularity and triggered a wave of hand-wringing that will last far longer than the boost.
So what of the PRCA - is there any courting of popularity or public opinion bounce behind its move? I rather think so.
The decision to walk away from UKPAC came hard on the heels of the lobbying industry taking another major hit with the Independent's sting against Bell Pottinger. The PRCA says the decision is unrelated. Indeed, CEO Francis Ingham makes the point strongly in a heated debate on the PR Week podcast with Keith Johnston.
Now while I accept that a week is a long time in politics, how about this sequence of events.
Defending the reputation of lobbyists and attacking politicians in his blog on the PRCA website on December 6th, Ingham writes:
"We believe that since the PRCA and APPC merged our registers, and the CIPR reintroduced theirs, all under the auspices of UKPAC, that body is the quickest, and most effective route to deliver enhanced regulation."
The Independent Bell Pottinger story broke that day and triggered a wave of protests and even an official PRCA member complaint and professional practices enquiry.
On December 9, the PRCA resigns from UKPAC, and in a letter to Ministers, Ingham writes:
"We have come to the reluctant conclusion that UKPAC is simply not the right vehicle to deliver the statutory register which is the Government's aim."
My word - what happened between December 6's "quickest and most effective route" and December 9's "not the right vehicle". It can't be the Bell Pottinger story because we are assured the action was not related.
I think the phrase that most readily springs to mind is: "Pull the other one".
Personally and politically, I can see all sorts of reasons for what is effectively a trade body for business, to take the actions it believes are necessary to best protect its members interests when they are under threat. The argument goes: If UKPAC is about to be seen by Government as not fit for purpose, then let's get out now and get our criticism in first.
OK, so UKPAC is not perfect. And UKPAC may well get some Government criticism. But there were three PR and Public Affairs industry groups working together to try to make it better and one has decided to flee the scene and leave the others to answer questions.
Like children caught by the broken window, perhaps the other two should say - "It wasn't us that broke it, another kid did it and ran away".
But seriously, surely the place to be for any trade or professional body in this area is inside the tent working for a solution, not outside it.
And, much like Mr Cameron, I do believe that pressure from all around will bring the PRCA back to the table to work with the other players. I certainly hope so - our industry is much stronger if all the voices unite and fight together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)