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.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)