I read with interest your article on the CIPR membership ('CIPR overhauls membership criteria to reflect new trends in PR industry', prweek.com/uk, 17 November).
When I tried to join in 1986, having moved from journalism to consultancy, I was refused membership and had to wait some years before being accepted.
That was frustrating and this change is to be welcomed.
However, being an experienced journalist does not automatically translate into being a good PR practitioner. Some poachers become good gamekeepers; others should stay poachers ...
... but new members need a qualification This looks like a missed opportunity. I am in favour of increasing membership and agree that the time-served model is outdated.
However, I would like to see a link between membership and education, with those achieving membership completing a CIPR qualification within two years.
- CIPR has missed an opportunity on comms
Most of us work across the comms disciplines. I do not recognise PR as a standalone discipline any more. I think the CIPR has missed an opportunity in not reviewing this.
- Review makes mockery of training commitment
Membership grades and entry standards deserved a review, but this solution makes a mockery of PR qualifications. We are in effect saying the PR training somebody commits to is irrelevant in the eyes of our professional body, when people from other occupations can be granted the same membership.