MAIN FEATURE: Exposed! - Maja Pawinska examines a report which analyses the image of the image makers

It’s no secret that public relations has got a pretty poor public image, sitting somewhere between the polarised camps of ’fluff’ and ’spin’.

It’s no secret that public relations has got a pretty poor public

image, sitting somewhere between the polarised camps of ’fluff’ and

’spin’.



But a report published at the end of February by the PRCA set out to

measure for the first time the way in which PR is portrayed in the

media, with some interesting results (PR Week, 3 March).



The Image of PR report, sponsored by evaluation specialist Echo Research

and cuttings company Romeike and Curtice, involved the analysis of more

than 2,500 cuttings from the UK’s national media from the whole of

1999.



The objectives of the study were to determine the image of PR and

communication in the media - its potential strengths, weakness,

opportunities and threats, in terms of issues, spokespeople and

journalists. The PRCA also commissioned the report to meet its own PR

objectives of gaining more visibility and credibility.



Echo came up with a list of 100 factors by which to measure the

cuttings, looking at areas such as what had driven the coverage and what

messages were coming across. The context of the article, including

headlines and visuals, was also assessed, with each piece of coverage

being rated on a points system.



Overall, the coverage was neutral. But political reporting was the

driver of much of the coverage, and was the most unfavourable source of

reporting.



Talk of ’spin doctors’ and their perceived manipulation gave the

coverage a negative slant.



There was a much more positive image of PR being projected from the

business community during 1999, however. CEOs were found to be good

endorsers of PR. with the most favourable sectors being retail, IT,

telecoms and consumer.



Individual papers were found to cover PR differently: the Daily

Telegraph, the Guardian, the Times and the Financial Times tended to be

positive, but much of the coverage in the Daily Mail and the Evening

Standard was unfavourable.



PR figureheads achieved a high profile during the year, spearheaded by

Alastair Campbell, Sophie Wessex and Matthew Freud, although mostly in

the context of their private lives rather than professional ability. Max

Clifford and Tim Bell were also among those practitioners who received

coverage in their own right as well as their clients.



The PRCA set up a forum on the same day as the publication of the report

to see how PR practitioners in a number of sectors, and journalists felt

about the findings. The round table was chaired by PRCA chairman Adrian

Wheeler, and attended by Clifford, Bell, Express writer Peter Oborne,

Hobsbawm Macaulay chairwoman Julia Hobsbawm; AOL Europe director of

corporate communications in the UK, Matt Peacock, and Echo Research CEO

Sandra McLeod.



The debate kicked off with discussion about whether the image of PR in

the media was fair. Hobsbawn is concerned that journalists are too quick

to criticise PRs when content-hungry papers rely on PR-driven

stories.



This sparked a lively debate on the relationship between journalism and

PR, with Oborne passionately defending the role of the journalist as an

uncoverer of truths, rather than being concerned with ’news

management.’



At the level of ’publicity stunts’, however, Oborne was scathing: ’Most

journalism is really about telling the truth as you see it, while PROs

often create the image that the truth is entirely malleable. In a lot of

cases, journalists and PRs are conspiring as to what is going out, and

that’s terribly damaging.’



Clifford was also frank about the ’game’ played by PROs and editors.



’Most of my time is spent keeping stories out of the press, not getting

them in. But when it’s an exclusive about the Blair baby or Jeffry

Archer, I make sure the paper is also full of plugs about my other

clients.’



The question of whether the PR industry should risk becoming the

messenger, rather than the message inevitably reared its head. Bell says

this is undesirable since his only aim is to get good coverage for his

clients.



In contrast, Clifford says he loves the attention and doing interviews,

and he does not understand why the industry doesn’t do more of them to

get a better image across.



So does PR need a spokesman? Most of the panel though not, since PR is

such as broad church. There were mixed feelings about whether it was

necessary to go on the offensive to communicate the positive benefits of

PR. Bell points out that there is a balance between letting people know

that PR does a good job and the industry taking itself too seriously.

Most people, he says, like the business because it’s fun, satisfying,

diverse, full of interesting people, and challenging, rather than

because it is a ’fundamental axis of trade’.



Peacock says, however, that without being pompous, in-house roles

similar to his are crucial to corporate strategy and reputation.

’Corporate communications at its best is the corporate conscience - I

sleep easier now than when I was a journalist and was told to ’make it

true’.’



Hobsbawm adds: ’It’s fine to be relaxed about PR, but the consequences

of not acting responsibly can be severely damaging. I am passionate

about the business and love the media relations end of it, but I hope I

act at all time with integrity.’



Where PR has achieved a prominent position within a corporation,

however, there are dangers as well as rewards. Philip Dewhurst’s

resignation from Railtrack may have been planned long before the

Paddington disaster, but the media didn’t see it that way.



Bell says: ’It’s bad for the industry if a man who is the public face of

a business is made the fall guy, but then it’s part of the job and the

messenger is frequently shot.’



So how did the PRCA view the report and the forum? Wheeler says he has

never heard a more fascinating discussion about PR and its obligations

to the public interest. ’I feel proud that the PRCA was the forum for

some of the industry’s most successful luminaries to speak so

passionately about what really matters to people who work in PR. The net

result was an enthralling session which everyone present wishes to

reprise later this year. This round table proved one thing above all

else: from whichever end of the PR spectrum they come, the industry’s

best-known practitioners believe implicitly in a code of ethics which

governs their conduct in every particular.’



The recommendations of the report are that focusing on the strengths,

especially the commercial usefulness of PR, is the key to providing some

counter-offensive against an image of the industry tainted by political

reporting. It is also suggested that the help of CEOs in areas where PR

is viewed favourably could help build media interest in business

stories, and human interest case studies for the mid-market press would

pay dividends at the level of influencing public opinion and attracting

future recruits.



But while the media are powerful agents in making or breaking the

reputation of an individual, a organisation or an industry, journalists

and their readers are not the only publics. Students are racing to be

part of a creative, exciting industry, and business leaders are starting

to be quite clear about the extent to which their ’corporate reputation’

or their ’image’ impacts on the success of their company. It’s only a

matter of time before this filters down more strongly into a wider

consciousness.



Since there is still no clear signal from the industry about whether it

wants to act with an ’image-building’ initiative, let alone what its

strategy would be, time, and continuing to do the best possible job for

clients, are the biggest factors it has on its side.



Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Register
Already registered?
Sign in