Along with other members of AEJMC's public relations division and members of the Arthur Page Society, I recently received a copy of "Words from a Page in History," a collection of the PR pioneer's speeches. I've seen copies of his speeches at the historical society in Wisconsin, online, at the society's archives, and in the archives at AT&T, but this is the first time I'd seen so many of them pulled together in one location.
I checked with my colleague Dr. Denise Bortree of the Arthur W. Page Center for Integrity in Public Communication to see if more copies would be available to students and scholars not on the mailing list, and she pointed out that the whole collection is available on PDF on the Center's website. Or, if you want one of the few hard copies left, contact Cinda Kostyak at csk2 at psu dot edu to request one.
This is a fabulous resource for anyone interested in the history of public relations, so I commend the Center for putting it together and distributing it so widely.
P. S. Students who are doing a paper on Page and found this post through a Google search: click through and read his speeches. And then you can look at my notes from a paper on Page.
Tom Watson's wonderful International History of Public Relations Conference is fast becoming a high point in my academic calendar.
Unfortunately, I can't travel to Bournemouth every year. Fortunately, Tom has released the 2011 IHPRC proceedings, so that those of us who could be there only via social media can now read the papers. It's a great resource for faculty and professionals interested in PR history, and a great starting point for some student term papers!
I had the great pleasure of attending the first-ever Center for Global Public Relations research conference in Charlotte on April 15 and wanted to share my notes from the keynote speaker, Jay DeFrank, vice president of communications for Pratt & Whitney.
DeFrank started by noting that advertising and PR people who are recognized by their peers are often not the same ones recognized internally -- for example, an ad agency that wins a Clio but gets sacked by their client. What matters most is the impact on the bottom line. He then shared two cases from his own career in which he argues that communication had a significant role on the bottom line.
The first case comes from DeFrank's career in the U.S. Air Force, when he was in charge of communication relating to the Afghan Humanitarian Air Drop. His job was to communicate that the United States was battling the Taliban, not the Afghan people or Muslims, and he argued for and received permission to place journalists on the airplanes doing the drops -- this had been against policy, but he believed it was required in order to convince a skeptical audience that the United States had good intentions in conducting the air drops.
DeFrank also helped with planning for the invasion of Iraq. Leaders were concerned about Iraqi disinformation because of experiences such as the baby milk factory bombing story during the first Gulf War. In addition, they thought it was important to maintain U.S. support for the invasion. With these two main goals in mind, DeFrank's team wrote objectives such as encouraging Iraqi dissent, boosting morale of U.S. troops, and countering Iraqi disinformation. He realized that credibility was key to achieving all of these objectives, and that objective observers were therefore necessary. This was the foundation for the "embed" program, where accredited journalists were embedded with American military units with no prior restraint (although there were rules about the release of information in order to protect the safety of the troops). For comparison purposes, DeFrank described the embed program in Iraq -- from March to May more than 700 journalists were embedded with troops with no prior restraint -- in contrast to the press coverage of the invasion of Normandy -- where there were 42 journalists with complete censorship. He noted that all sorts of press organizations had credentials, even in some instances when the "journalist" was probably a spy for another country; he believed if someone wanted information about the invasion they could have it as long as it didn't endanger the troops.
DeFrank argued that the U.S. military reached its objectives. They were successful in countering Iraqi disinformation, with "Baghdad Bob" being completely discredited; they were successful in gaining the support of U.S. public opinion, and they were successful with international public opinion. He argued that the troops liked having an embedded reporter, even when the story was ugly, because they were able to portray the terrible complexities and to reinforce the credibility of the whole program. Journalists who were not embedded, however, were angry at being left out.
Next DeFrank turned to Pratt and Whitney communications, explaining that the company is #37 on the Fortune 500, producing commercial engines, space power systems, small engines and military engines. He stated that the company's communication goals include building a favorable environment, including the regulatory and policy environment, nurturing talent, and building a positive reputation.
He focused on a specific case, the F135 engine campaign in spring 2009. Their purpose was to convince Congress not to pay for a second (competitive) backup engine for the F135 but to allow P&W to build all of the engines. The company used a broad range of tactics, including a blog and Twitter for media relations and a Facebook fanpage just for the engine; third-party endorsements from organizations that oppose wasteful spending; harnessing employees by having them write letters to their representatives (with a website that helped them identify the right people and their contact information, in addition to generating a rotating letter template so that not all the letters were the same); and an advertising campaign in which Pratt attacked waste, while competitor GE attacked Pratt. The results included 20,000 letters to Congress, a televised endorsement by President Obama, and a House vote in favor of P&W's position, 233-198. (DeFrank was quick to note that the issue could come up again in 2012, though).
Thus, DeFrank concluded, public relations can contribute to the bottom line when strategies and tactics are based on the larger goals and objectives and when PR has a voice internally -- in both of these instances, other people in the organizations were skeptical or even oppositional to the plans, but because he was able to show how the plans would help achieve the larger goals, he had organizational support to move forward.
Congratulations to the University of North Carolina-Charlotte on a successful first Global Public Relations research conference (pictures here).
Bournemouth University professor Tom Watson recently delivered an informative lecture on PR evaluation, which he argues can be viewed as a surrogate the history of PR more generally. I'm providing a summary and the videos of his lecture, followed by my own comments.
Watson began with a brief chronological review, pointing out that since as early as the 18th and 19th centuries, U.S. presidents have conducted informal media monitoring, employing straw polls and news cutting agencies. By the end of the 19th century, press agentry and publicity, placing newsworthy items, had emerged; according to his research, Ivy Lee believed PR was not measurable, whereas Edward Bernays believed it was an applied social science. By the 1920s, public opinion research was developing and was used by people like Arthur Page to make their campaigns more strategic, but there appears to have been little evaluative research -- just an assumption that results would follow from a research-based strategy. Watson identifies a change in the role of PR from a management function to product publicity, citing L'Etang's conclusion that PR was seen as a cheaper form of advertising.
Next Watson reviewed a number of common practices after 1950, starting with monitoring press coverage and attempting measure "Impact," as Cutlip et al. outlined in Effective Public Relations; however, he provides a number of quotes from 1930s-1960s American and British practitioners who concluded that measurement is very difficult. It's perhaps not surprising, then, that during the 1950s the focus was on outputs rather than outcomes.
According to Watson's research, the dreaded AVEs (advertising value equivalencies) first reared their ugly heads in the literature around the mid-1960s, although he suspects they were in use earlier. From the late 1960s, however, evaluation methods began to get more sophisticated. As an example, Watson points to a 1968 American Marketing Association publication that contained seven articles on methods of measuring PR results, the rise of PR service industries, and PR Data, computer-based analysis of public relations at General Electric, which began in 1964.
During the 1980s a number of articles in academic journals, in addition to work by professionals like Katie Paine and Walter Lindenmann, suggested that evaluation was of increasing importance. Jim Grunig pointed out, though, that although everyone says evaluation is good, most people were still not doing it. Nonetheless, by the 1990s measurement and evaluation were considered top issues for PR practitioners globally; Watson provides examples from the U.S., U.K., Germany, and Sweden.
If you'd like more detail, the address has been released on video.
Here's part one:
And here's part two:
Now for a few comments for Tom:
1. I'm not so sure I buy your argument that evaluation history can serve as a surrogate for all PR history. Maybe it does, but you'll have to do more to convince me. More to the point, I'm not so sure why you think it should. Doesn't a history of evaluation stand on its own merit? I found it to be informative in its own right.
2. Loved the comparison between Lee and Bernays -- a perfect example of how studying evaluation can further our understanding of the field.
3. I disagree with your (and by extension L'Etang's) assessment of PR becoming [just] product publicity. This may be true of the U.K. (??) but the U.S. evidence doesn't bear it out. Although there were PR agents and departments that specialized in product publicity, there were also big-timers like John Hill, T.J. Ross, and Earl Newsom who were in on the policy making, as much or more than they were into the publicity, from the 1920s through the 1960s.
4. The post-1950s part is fascinating. You've documented some of the important people and publications who created a foundation for many of the debates and practices that continue today. I would love to know who started all this business with AVEs (right, Katie?), and when. You're absolutely right that measurement has been a key issue for several decades now, and yet it hasn't been a subject within PR historiography -- so thank you for opening this area for study.
5. Your focus was primarily U.S./U.K. (with evidence from Germany and Sweden as available) and primarily corporate/agency public relations. I'd be very interested in learning more about government, education, trade union, religious, reform and nonprofit organizations as well. But I say that about just about everything in PR historiography.
6. Thanks for sharing your lecture. I learned a lot and hope my comments prove helpful!
Readers, if you're still with me, I hope you'll feel free to chime in with your comments, and maybe we can convince Tom to respond on his blog.
Just a reminder that abstracts are due shortly if you hope to attend the International History of Public Relations Conference. I was fortunate enough to attend last year and highly recommend it if you're at all interested in PR's history-- great conversations, different perspectives, and a little local flavor.
Here's the information from conference organizer Tom Watson:
CALL FOR PAPERS
THE INTERNATIONAL HISTORY OF PUBLIC RELATIONS CONFERENCE
6-7 July 2011
Organised by the Centre for Public Communication Research (CPCR) at
The Media School, Bournemouth University, Poole, England
Papers welcomed from Asian, African and Latin American scholars
Academics, practitioners and research students are invited to submit competitive abstracts and papers for presentation at The International History of Public Relations Conference (IHPRC) to be held on 6-7 July 2011 at Bournemouth University.
The first IHPRC was held in July this year and attracted more than 80 delegates from 13 countries to hear two keynote speakers and 34 refereed papers over two days. The conference was considered by all to be very successful – and an important development in public relations scholarship. More details, including the keynote presentations, are available at http://historyofpr.com.
Papers for presentation at the 2011 conference will be selected, after peer review, on the basis of abstracts, of no more than two pages total length, including any references. Author details are to be printed on a separate sheet and the author(s) should not be identified in the abstract. Abstracts must be presented in Word format, in 1.5 line spacing and 12 point font size.
Manuscripts of the selected papers are to be submitted with Harvard referencing and according to the Journal of Communication Management editorial style found at: http://info.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=jcom. The manuscript of 3000 to 6000 words, plus references, must be presented in Word format, in 1.5 line spacing and 12 point font size.
Deadlines
Submission of abstracts: Monday, December 6, 2010
Acceptance notification (by email): Monday, January 24, 2011
Submission of selected papers: Monday, June 6, 2011
All accepted abstracts will be published online prior to the conference programme. Papers selected for the Conference will be published in the IHPRC Proceedings.
Conference Themes
As this is the second international conference on the History of Public Relations, the range of conference themes has remained broad and those listed below are the starting point for consideration, rather than a finite list.
Public relations in history before it became a named or defined discipline
Alternative approaches to the history of public relations, e.g. on the basis of culture (personal networks and influence) or via definitions of public relations
The evolving naming of the field from propaganda and press agentry to corporate communications
The history of public relations and its developing or diverging relationships with other disciplines like marketing, HR, legal and corporate governance
The evolution of public relations in nations or parts of government or industry
Seminal personalities or events that shaped the formation of public relations as a discipline (This can also include challenges to the “Great Man” or “Great Woman” approach)
Key books or articles (or series of both) that have influenced public relations
The history of political public relations and lobbying
The history of public relations education
The evolution of public relations theory(ies) over time – from propaganda to dialogue; the history of schools of thinking in public relations
Formative influences on public relations theory and practice, such as in or by government, industry or consultancy
The formation of industry and professional bodies and their impact, over time, on public relations practice and education
The evolution of public relations education, training and continuing professional development
The impact of technology, over time, upon public relations practice and theory
Archival sources for the history of public relations
The theories and processes of researching the history of public relations
Oral histories of public relations; the role of this methodology
Papers are especially welcomed from scholars in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Please send abstracts to Prof Tom Watson, Conference Chair, The Media School, Bournemouth University, email: prhistory@bournemouth.ac.uk by Monday, December 6, 2010.
The Conference Venue
As in 2010, the conference will be held at Bournemouth University’s Executive Business Centre. Conference Registration will be arranged through http://historyofpr.com with details of tickets to be announced shortly.
Great news for the history lovers out there who didn't get to attend the International History of Public Relations Conference in Bournemouth last summer: the IHPRC proceedings have now been posted.
The site includes abstracts and papers, links to PowerPoint presentations as applicable, and links to some of the "major presentations" on video (non-historians might be interested in the video of the session featuring PR journal editors Anne Gregory, Ray Hiebert, Jacquie L'Etang, Don Wright and me).
Tons of good info on the IHPRC site, so please check it out. Kudos again to Tom Watson for recognizing that information wants to be free!
They're accepting full papers, working papers and posters, and they welcome submissions from faculty, students, and professionals. Abstracts are due on 7 December (so I guess I'd better get to work on mine). Hope to see you there!
Inspired by Constantin Basturea, I decided to come up with my all-time top 5 PR books. But I couldn't do it. I couldn't even do my top 5 PR history books. So, instead, I present Two Top 5 PR History Book lists.
Books by Practitioners George Creel, How We Advertised America (1920)
Edward Bernays, Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923)
Ivy Lee, Publicity (1925)
Arthur Page, The Bell Telephone System (1941)
John Hill, The Making of a Public Relations Man (1963)
Books by PR Historians
Alan R. Raucher, Public Relations and Business, 1900-1929 (1968)
Richard Tedlow, Keeping the Corporate Image (1979)
Scott Cutlip, The Unseen Power (1994) [disclosure: I served as research assistant for some chapters]
Roland Marchand, Creating the Corporate Soul (1998)
Jacquie L’Etang, Public Relations in Britain (2004)
All of these books have been significant in shaping my thinking for my own scholarship on PR history. If I had to pick only one to take to the desert island, it would be Marchand's.
As a historian, I know how the introduction of new media has worked in the United States. A new medium comes along (think radio). People talk about the possibility for cultural uplift--how virtually anyone can learn, be exposed to new ideas, hear the best music, and engage in political debate because they've heard the words directly from the candidate or official's mouth. Then along comes advertising and PR. Soon the airwaves are full of jingles rather than opera, news that attracts an audience rather than providing information about boring things like economics or foreign policy, and stage-managed speeches rather than genuine debate. (Roland Marchand analyzed this best in Advertising the American Dream.)
As a public relations professor, I'm fully cognizant that what I teach in the ivory tower isn't necessarily what happens in the real world of PR. We talk about the ideal speech situation (Habermas), two-way symmetrical communication (Grunig and Hunt), call it what you will--but the idea is supposed to be that PR professionals, in addition to providing facts and information, create dialogue between an organization and its publics. This isthe only meaningful justification for the practice. Don't give me the tired "marketplace of ideas" concept; there's no such thing, and even if there were, just like in the economic market, the people who are already rich have a big advantage over everyone else. That's why I'm so excited about the potential of social media, which does level the playing field, and that's why Edelman doesn't get a bye this time. (See Constantin's roundup on PR meets the WWW if you somehow missed this story.)
Social media have the potential to "uplift" much like radio or television did. They also have the potential to become polluted with advertising garbage, public relations fluff, or lies, so that even the genuine, good stuff out there is looked upon with suspicion by participants. It doesn't have to be that way. But when an agency that positions itself as the market leader fails on the principle of "Protecting and advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information [that] is essential to serving the public interest and contributing to informed decision making in a democratic society" (if you don't recognize it, that's the PRSA Code of Ethics), it makes it hard for the rest of us to forgive and forget. If Edelman will do it, or allow its client to do it, or whatever happened, what's to stop a smaller, less visible, or more desperate organization from doing it without qualm, or even second thought? As Todd Defren points out, the silence from Edelman bloggers screams hypocrisy.
The blogosphere is a more fragile place than people may realize. Who will protect it--Edelman? You?
In fact, the news release is not 100 years old; but it as I pointed out in my presentation, 1906 is a year worth celebrating.
Here's what I said (warning, long):
George Washington never actually chopped down a cherry tree, nor told his father, "I cannot tell a lie"
Abraham Lincoln didn’t really draft the Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope
Feminists did NOT burn their bras at the Miss America pageant in the 1960s
And, the news release isn’t really 100 years old. Like so many aspects of history, the story surrounding the birth of the news release is murky. We know that the Bryan and McKinley campaigns issued something akin to press releases in 1896, and that public officials, insurance, railway and telegraph companies, resorts, entertainers, hotels, and retailers were all employing press agents before 1900. Editors had begun complaining about "space stealing" and free publicity as early as the 1880s. What it boils down to is that we really don’t know when to celebrate the birth of the news release.
But if we want to celebrate it, 1906 is as good a year as any. That year Cedartown, Georgia’s own Ivy Ledbetter Lee issued a "Declaration of Principles," which to my mind represents a watershed moment in the history of public relations. Like many press agents, Lee had been a reporter, for the New York Times no less, but unlike the others he used his understanding of the press not to make a quick buck but to establish a new way of thinking about press relations.
The Declaration is worth quoting, as Sherman Morse did in a 1906 magazine article about the new class of press agents epitomized by Lee. Many of you read it in your Intro to PR textbooks, but we won't speculate about how long ago that might've been. Here's what Lee wrote:
"This is not a secret press bureau. All our work is done in the open. We aim to supply news. This is not an advertising agency; if you think any of our matter ought properly to go to your business office, do not use it. Our matter is accurate. Further details on any subject treated will be supplied promptly, and any editor will be assisted most cheerfully in verifying directly any statement of fact."
The Declaration separates Lee from other press agents because he insisted that he was providing information, not advertising, and that editors were free to use it—or not.
Lee’s words should still resonate for us today, grounded though they are in century-old language (I mean, who’s cheerful in this day and age?). The writing textbook that I use in my PR Communication class advises students that it’s okay to risk loss of control over content. It talks about news values, and it emphasizes the importance of accuracy and timeliness.
It also, of course, teaches students the proper format for writing a news release. Which brings us back to 1906. That year is also significant for us today because that’s when Lee started using what he called a “handout” in a large-scale, systematic way.
Working on behalf of the anthracite coal operators, Lee issued frequent handouts that updated reporters on discussions between the operators and the miners at a time when another huge coal strike was pending. One reporter stated that it had been almost impossible, during the 1902 strike, for a reporter to get any reliable information from the owners. In 1906, though, because of Ivy Lee "news of importance and interest was easily obtainable from operators as well as from miners."
Despite this change, Sherman Morse was, in 1906, still skeptical. "The new plan has not been in effect long enough to enable one to foresee its real meaning,” he wrote. “Much depends upon whether it results in disclosing all the facts in which the public has a right to be concerned, or whether it results merely in obtaining for the corporations greater publicity for such facts as are directly favorable to them."
It is worth noting that, under Lee’s new system, the coal miners went back to work under their old agreement, gaining nothing but a three-year peace.
It’s also worth considering that Lee failed to live up to the standards he set in the Declaration during his work for the Rockefeller family during the Colorado Fuel and Iron strike, less than a decade later. Sherman Morse would not have been surprised. But, having debunked one myth already, I will save that story for another day.
In response to Kami Huyse's request to see the whole thing, here is Ivy Lee's "Declaration of Principles," as quoted by Sherman Morse in "An Awakening in Wall Street: How the Trusts, after Years of Silence, now speak though authorized and acknowledged Press Agents"(The American Magazine, vol. 63, September 1906). Update: vol. number was incorrect -- the correct number is vol. 62. Page numbers = 457-63; the declaration is on p. 460.
"This is not a secret press bureau. All our work is done in the open. We aim to supply news. This is not an advertising agency; if you think any of our matter ought properly to go to your business office, do not use it. Our matter is accurate. Further details on any subject treated will be supplied promptly, and any editor will be assisted most cheerfully in verifying directly any statement of fact. Upon inquiry, full information will be given to any editor concerning those on whose behalf an article is sent out. In brief, our plan is, frankly and openly, on behalf of business concerns and public institutions, to supply to the press and public of the United States prompt and accurate information concerning subjects which it is of value and interest to the public to know about. Corporations and public institutions give out much information in which the news point is lost to view. Nevertheless, it is quite as important to the public to have this news as it is to the establishments themselves to give it currency. I send out only matter every detail of which I am willing to assist any editor in verifying for himself. I am always at your service for the purpose of enabling you to obtain more complete information concerning any of the subjects brought forward in my copy."
