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.

We need engagement - not just endorsement

So as we enter the last week of the CIPR election the candidates have not been short of official opportunities to state their case. The CIPR's Conversation web site gave each candidate a chance to write a blog and then the excellent Phillip Sheldrake hosted a Presidential Debate on CIPR TV.

Two of the candidates - Rob and Lionel - have also taken to the business networking site Linked In and formed campaign groups which they have been inviting people to join.

Looking at these sites, one thing stood out for me, and it further strengthened my support for Rob.

Both sites are obviously intended to help the candidate win votes and win the election. But the sites are very different in other ways - and I think the difference is quite telling.

On Rob's site there are a number of discussion threads with comments and opinions waging back and forth across the contributors. The future of our industry and the skills we will need are being debated.

The site mirrors Rob and what he brings to the party and is all about engagement. On the the other hand, Lionel's linked in group consists largely of messages saying you have my vote - it is more about endorsement than engagement.

My view is that if you care about the direction of our industry and the Institute then you need to get engaged. I would urge you to visit Rob's Linked In group, and his campaign website and to join in with the debate.

I think the Institute will be in safe hands after this election which I hope gets the largest turnout for many a year.

But I believe that Rob is the candidate that is the most progressive, the most inclusive and the one best able to secure the engagement of the wider membership - and I hope he gets your vote.

Poppycock, FIFA and other dubious matters

So, the FA (and Govt and Royalty and the outraged writers and readers of many of our national newspapers) didn't quite get their desire and England's shirts remain poppyless; however, the spirit of compromise is alive and well and to be found in a poppy emblazoned on a black armband to be worn by the players on Saturday.

FIFA generally gets a bad press in the UK - and usually deserves it. But time spent this week in the company of a German client and some visitors from Austria had me changing my outraged mind and siding with the FIFA mandarins.

It was in particular enlightening to hear my German colleague say that there was still an issue with remembering the war dead in Germany because the nation was so embarassed by its war past that "honouring the fallen" was actually something that was almost impossible to imagine.

So, despite my own desire - and I think the wish of the Royal British Legion - for the Remembrance movement to reflect sadly on the tragic loss of lives on all sides of the past conflicts; things are not always what they seem and maybe FIFA were right to stick to their guns and not allow an addition to player shirts that could create an unwanted precedent. Such as Argentina playing at Wembley with a Malvinas war dead emblem for example.

I also found it ironic that at the height of this debate, our Government could find time to proscribe an admittedly extremist Muslim movement and prevent their gathering on Sunday in an "anti-poppy" rally which aimed (among other less savoury points) to highlight the numerous civilian casualties during the war on terrorism waged, in the main by US and UK forces.

Let me be clear on this before the hate mail starts. There is no common ground between what appears to be a hateful extremist group and the Royal British Legion and its Poppy day movement. And freedom of speech and expression does not include freedom to incite violence which the Govt has a duty to guard against.

But there are two sides to most stories and we should try wherever possible to listen to both.

Speaking of stories... James Murdoch was telling his version of events to the House of Commons committee again yesterday. He appears to be very consistent and insists that he did not know the extent of the hacking or the reason why the pay-off to Gordon Taylor was so high for example.

Given the number of people who argue to the contrary, one can only conclude he either wasn't listening, wasn't paying attention, didn't understand, didn't care, or simply got confused poor lad. Whichever it was: he shouldn't be allowed control of the cheque book.

Some thinking explained...

Around a week ago - a long time in politics I know - I wrote and outlined my support for Rob Brown in the upcoming CIPR Presidential election.

I described Rob as the most progressive candidate and one that I felt was best able to continue to unite members, council, Board and staff on the upward path that I believe the Institute is now following.

Not surprisingly, I have had a couple of emails from friends and colleagues asking me to elaborate on those thoughts and querying whether that meant I regarded the other candidates as "unable" to unite those groups.

So - for the record - no I do not believe the other candidates would be "unable" to gain across the board support, nor do I feel that they would not seek a progressive agenda. That doesn't change my view however, that Rob is the candidate in the best place to continue the progression.

At various stages I have worked closely with all three candidates for the Presidency and I know the strengths they would bring to the task at hand - in terms of their management style and business acumen; their PR background; their relationships with the broad church of the existing membership; their appeal to the next generation; their ability to work through, around or past the current PRCA difficulties; and the contribution they can make personally to the image and progression of the CIPR and indeed the profession itself as it faces up to the challenge of the digital era.

So, and with apologies to Lionel and Sue, when I look across all those requirements, Rob gets more "first place" votes from me and emerges as the strongest candidate.

You will probably be delighted to know that those are my final thoughts on the subject. I would urge you to use your vote, and to read the statements of all the candidates. I wish all the candidates well and I know that whoever triumphs will strive hard on behalf of the membership.

CIPR Presidency - a tough but clear choice

As I know only too well from my time at the helm, the CIPR went through some challenging times in recent years.

I'm therefore pleased to see the Institute not just surviving but emerging as a progressive force once more - staying in front of the game with its Social Summer events, creating a genuinely useful member interaction tool in The Conversation and now tackling its membership grades to be both more inclusive and transparent.

I believe I played my own part in enabling these changes and helped lay the platform for the work of successive presidents Jay O'Connor, Paul Mylrea and - next year's incumbent - Sally Sykes. I worked very closely with all three of those people during some very tough re-structuring and reforms of the Institute and have the utmost respect for the way they have acted both individually and as an "officer" team.

However, CIPR members now face the difficult task of choosing the 2012 President-Elect from three more very worthy and able candidates.

I know all three candidates very well - and they would all bring clear qualities to the post of President in 2013. But I only have one vote. And that vote will go to Rob Brown.

History teaches us many things, but the importance of moving forward is a valuable lesson in life, in business and - I dare say - in the office of CIPR President.

Both Lionel Zetter and Sue Wolstenholme are talented and committed professionals who are a credit to the Institute. However, I feel the most progressive candidate, and the one best able to continue the upward path is Rob Brown.

For me, Rob ticks many boxes. A modern PR Professional who is at the forefront of the integration of social media in the way we work, an able commentator across a wide range of issues, and a successful businessman able to cut through clutter to get to the heart of the matter.

The Institute still faces challenges but is emerging stronger thanks to the efforts and leadership of CEO Jane Wilson and her team; a highly focused Executive Board and a supportive but challenging Council. I firmly believe that Rob Brown would be the right President to continue uniting that group and driving the CIPR on an upward, progressive, path.

One final thing. If you are eligible, please do vote, and if you are not eligible, please do join! However, whether you agree with my thoughts or not, please vote for the candidate of your choice. Information about how to cast your vote was sent to members on October 17. The poll closes next month.

The CIPR and the PRCA - we do need both

I enter this debate a little late and with the benefit of having seen and heard many reactions to the move by the PRCA to accept individual members.

I have some sympathy with the point of view that this latest move might expand the total number of people working within PR who seek some form of professional representation, but I still cannot support the move which I feel is commercially motivated. I am afraid that I do not think this move is in the "best interests of the industry" nor do I accept that as its motivation.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, under its current leadership the PRCA has embarked on a programme to replicate many elements of the CIPR - in services, organisation and even in its naming conventions.

The CIPR has been governed by an elected "Council" for nearly all of its 60-plus years of existence and for most of that time has had a grade of membership called Fellow awarded to recognise service to the industry or the Institute. More recently, these terms and structure have been introduced by the PRCA.

The CIPR has always has strong membership from in-house PR organisations in both the the commercial and public sector. Under its current leadership the PRCA - the Association for Public Relations Consultancies lest we forget - introduced a membership scheme for in-house organisations.

Now comes the scheme to allow individuals to join as well - hell, why not change the word Association to Institute in your title and while you are at it you could re-arrange the letters as well.

Does any of this matter? Yes, I think it does. And I even find myself agreeing with Francis Ingham, who was quoted in PR Week saying that there is room for two voices.

Of course there is - the two organisations can very comfortably follow their natural roles in the PR universe - so please stop trying to blur the lines.

The CIPR represents individuals, it looks to increase the standing of the profession, to improve the qualifications available, and to act as a rallying point for professional practice and standards. The PRCA can very happily co-exist to help consultancies run their businesses better, to improve management and commercial standards, and to fight on behalf of the industry for better rewards and respect for its work.

There is clear water between an Institute for individual members concerned with progressing their own careers and skill set; and the Trade body, representing the best interests of its member companies.

However, the actions of both organisations need to maintain that clear water. There will, of course, be areas of overlap and topics on which the two organisations should co-operate and speak with one voice.

But this industry has enough organisations and enough individual workers to support both bodies - the professional institute and the commercial association.

So come on - stop trying to narrow the gap, and re-affirm the clear water that exists so that you can both get on with serving the best interests of the profession individually and in partnership.