As a PRSA Assembly Delegate in San Diego, I witnessed the demise of PRSA and its slow evolution into irrelevancy.
I've been a member of PRSA for many years and I found this situation to be particularly sad and disappointing. The Assembly had an opportunity to be PR industry leaders and visionaries—but instead succumbed to parochialism, narrow mindedness and small thinking.
The Assembly also failed to uphold the premise and guiding principle of public relations—fostering the flow of good work in an open and free democratic society. PRSA was on the verge of demonstrating its allegiance to democratic values but failed miserably.
In a word, the PRSA Assembly peremptorily disenfranchised some 16,000 of its 21,000 members. The Assembly put the nails in the coffin of democracy in PRSA and has made a statement to more than 90 percent of the PR industry's leaders: Go elsewhere; you are not welcome in PRSA.
The PRSA Assembly has literally closed the doors to the best minds in our profession. How did the Assembly pull off this art of self-destruction? By requiring that all national officers and board members be accredited.
Moreover, the PRSA Assembly continues to confuse the true purpose of accreditation with leadership requirements. Let's examine accreditation and what its intent is. Accreditation is the means by which PRSA professionals further qualify themselves professionally by passing a rigorous examination and earning the APR certification.
I have always supported the true purpose of accreditation. I made the decision some years ago that my knowledge base of public relations would be enhanced immeasurably by mastering the accreditation curricula and taking it with me into my daily professional activities. I was proud when I was notified that I had passed the tests and became a bona fide APR.
However, some years back, the leadership in PRSA decided that APR would serve another purpose as well—that in order to be a leader in PRSA, you needed to be accredited. From that day on, the great leaders within the PR profession have been excluded from leadership in PRSA.
For the past forty years or so, only APRs could be elected to the national board. Now, this would be fine if PRSA accreditation were universally embraced. But the fact is that it's not. Less than 20 percent of the 21,000 PRSA members have chosen to become accredited. And that pattern hasn't changed in years.
Why is that? My conclusion is that the marketing and focus of APR has been totally misdirected. APR has been aimed at PR professionals who are more than mid-way in their careers. Its focus should have been on newcomers to the profession. Can you imagine other professions taking this approach? If so, then doctors, lawyers, CPA's and engineers could all become licensed or certified after they've been practicing for twenty years. Just as this concept makes no sense for other professions, it makes no sense for public relations.
In my travels as a PR agency owner and now a consultant, I run across many corporate communications officers and PR agency senior executives. As a result of their strong sense that they have absolutely nothing to gain by becoming accredited at this stage in their careers, their potential leadership contributions to PRSA are nipped at the bud.
More than 90 percent of the industry's leaders are unable to contribute to PRSA because they choose not to become accredited. Instead, they have gravitated toward such other organizations as the Arthur Page Society, the Council of PR Firms and the Institute of Public Relations (IPR).
I attended a recent annual dinner of IPR at which John Iwata, the chief communications officer of IBM, gave the keynote address. As I looked around the room at the more than 400 attendees, I asked myself why PRSA, the largest PR professional association in the world, doesn't attract the likes of these industry leaders.
And the answer is APR.
I have a recurring premonition about PRSA. And that is that, one day, those 16,000 disenfranchised members who are not accredited will rise up. They can't vote and they can't become national board members and officers. What is to prevent them from deciding to spin off and form their own professional association and enjoy the rights they are now denied in PRSA?
If this ever happened—and it could—then the present 4,000 APR members of PRSA could enjoy their exclusivity into perpetuity.
As a member of the PRSA bylaws revision task force, I took part in a spirited two-year effort to help create greater democracy. Our unanimous recommendations included eliminating the APR requirement for national leadership and allowing all members to vote. The Assembly voted down these recommendations.
Instead of seizing the opportunity for PRSA to represent the entire PR profession, the Assembly chose to remain exclusionary. This was a defining moment for PRSA. And it failed the test.
PRSA chapters and sections will continue to serve their members by providing ever more meaningful professional development programs. And PRSA puts on an impressive array of such programs at its annual conference as well as throughout the year. So PRSA at both the local and national levels is still the go-to organization for learning. It has become the organization for new and mid-level professionals. But because of its peculiar and outdated governance, PRSA will lag behind more targeted and relevant professional groups in attracting the top tier in the profession.
PRSA will go on, of course. But it can no longer lay claim to represent the entire profession of public relations. Isn't it ironic that an association of PR professionals has failed to execute what would have been its greatest public relations effort ever—to represent the entire profession?
Comments:
Monday, November 16, 2009 8:33:18 AM by Anonymous
Spot on! And I've been a PRSA member and APR for more than 20 years. Would I do it today? Membership, probably APR, questionable.
Monday, November 16, 2009 10:18:21 AM by Gerard Braud
I've been in communications since 1979, but as a self-employed one man shop, I can't afford to spend the time necessary to work on my APR or ABC. I've started the process a few times, but it takes so many days of prep that I would lose significant business and revenue. The time I did spend in study indicated they were more interested in giving me a vocabulary test than they were in knowing about my strategic PR mind.
Monday, November 16, 2009 10:19:41 AM by Anonymous
Jack O'Dwyer couldn't have said it better.
Monday, November 16, 2009 10:21:59 AM by Frances Hardin
Agreed. PRSA is becoming irrelevant for even more reasons: the numerous online training sessions and even the in-person ones have price tags way beyond the reach of its younger members and seemed geared simply to be money-makers for the purveyors.
Monday, November 16, 2009 10:23:15 AM by Anonymous
Good article. The accreditation pressure is among the reasons that I regretfully left PRSA more than a decade ago after serving as president of the local chapter. In more than 20 years of PR, no prospective client has ever asked me if I was accredited. For that matter, no one ever has asked if I belonged to PRSA.
Monday, November 16, 2009 10:27:31 AM by Anonymous
Hmmm...interesting observation! I've also heard the argument that an APR can/should sub for a PhD for tenure-track positions. That kind of self-serving pressure comes off as vainglory rather than professional, you know?
Monday, November 16, 2009 10:34:01 AM by Anonymous
You are right about PRSA losing its relevance, but to blame its accreditation program for that demise is silly. PRSA has far greater problems. In my opinion, it is cliquish, its collective mindset demonstrates the lack of confidence PR professionals have in their own value, the organization fawns over celebrities like school kids, it allows political biases to show and become institutionalized, it often operates in secrecy to the detriment of its own members, and it seemingly uses its own committees to rubber stamp decisions.
Monday, November 16, 2009 10:39:35 AM by Anonymous
Art, thank you for writing what many of us have been thinking and saying for years. I'm also an APR, and to be honest, I don't see the benefits of having it. I've seen amazing leadership talent left untapped because they don't have an APR. It's silly and ridiculous. You're right, it weakens PRSA...an organization that just can't seem to keep up with the times.
Monday, November 16, 2009 10:40:41 AM by Graham Sudbury
Well and thoughtfully stated, Art. Maybe if enough present and future Assembly members take your analysis to heart change can still be accomplished. Of PRSA's problems, this is one that should be fixable. From a 50-plus year PRSA member, APR, former national board member, district chairman, chapter president, assembly member, etc. etc.
Monday, November 16, 2009 10:42:39 AM by Anonymous
As an Assembly voting delegate for the entire three year period of the bylaws revision period, I am happy to read this article, because it publicly affirms the reasoning behind my vote, along with the majority of rest of the delegates in that room to block this at this time. Your account of the proceedings is desperately in need of factchecking, because it is skewed to the reality preferred by the task force. What was initially sold to us as a "cleanup" of outdated bylaws turned into a revision that completely restructured the lines of authority in the association, and then attempted to cram it down our throats with no more reason than that you didn't want to waste the time and money of the task force. It failed because the leadership failed to do proper PR - no two way communications, no including the Assembly into the process along the way so we had a better understanding, no clarification of concerns we had when we finally were let into the plans by conference calls, no publications of the "PRSA Policies and Procedures" that was to govern much of the association in the future. We couldn't even find out who our fellow delegates were in order to discuss this amongst ourselves. PRSA spoke and we were to listen.
If passed, the new bylaws were to take effect immediately, including elections of officers by the entire membership. Yet leadership couldn't tell us how it would be done, and then objected to the resolution at the end of the day directing leadership to come back with a plan for holding direct elections next year and we'd vote on it again. You can't have it both ways - either PRSA leadership is prepared to hold direct elections or it is not. Then, there was the challenge at the end, along the lines of "you're so smart, then YOU (delegates) come up with the plan" from an unhappy member of the task force. While I share his unhappiness at having his work torn apart, I would bet those plans already exist at PRSA headquarters in New York - if they don't, this association is even more dysfunctional than I have experienced it to be. And he is right. Having rejected the proposal for direct elections because of the lack of a plan, we should come up with policies and procedures to implement direct voting, which the discussion of the delegates was clearly in favor of implementing, just not the way it was presented.
Your argument over the process of accreditation is specious as well. You claim it is geared toward the mid-career professional, conveniently ignoring the fact that when it was last revised, the 5-year professional practice requirement was eliminated, as attested to by the young Assembly delegate who spoke so eloquently of having earned hers just three years into her career. She pointed out that the whining of the 20 year plus veterans that they didn't have time to commit to the exam was just an excuse. Your use of medical doctors and lawyers as an example of why the APR should be excluded is also off-target, when you look at the extended college education beyond the four-year degree, and in the case of doctors, the internships and residencies required before they can become fully practicing, licensed doctors. Public relations is different. Because of free speech issues, we haven't been successful in pursuing licensing of our profession. Any schmoe can, and has, hung out a shingle and proclaimed themselves a public relations consultant regardless of educational background, usually to the detriment of the profession and the rest of us who take our professional education and training seriously.
And finally, the revisions were rebuffed precisely because of the smug attitude of the bylaws task force and national leadership as conveyed through this article: a figurative pat on the head and a "don't worry, we're doing this for the profession's own good," instead of listening to the concerns and adjusting the revisions to address those concerns. Take the amendment spelling out what "good standing" meant. Or the one clarifying when a member could be expelled from the association, to name just two incidents. It boils down to this: We, the members of PRSA, do not trust the leadership of the association. This is based solely on past experience. When information is withheld from the delegates until late in the final year of a three-year task force process, then issues raised on conference calls about the bylaws revision are brushed aside, it deepens that mistrust. When the Assembly delegates vote to place into the bylaws specific policies and procedures to prevent the leadership from blithely careening off on whatever tangent it feels like at the moment, that should tell you that you have an issue much more serious to address than whether APR should be required to hold a board position. When the new bylaws attempted to eviscerate the Assembly to the point that it has no reason to exist, other than to debate issues like "the definition of PR" as the leadership wanted us to do at the 2008 Assembly, led by the nose by a (probably) overpriced consultant who responded in surprise to a vote on APR that didn't turn out as she expected (the delegates insisted on the value of APR), what did you expect?
When we delegates read minutes from our sessions that are slanted or just downright inaccurate (as in the reporting on the discussion over accreditation at the 2008 Assembly) that leaves us wondering if we were at the same meeting as the note taker, then PRSA has a problem bigger than just the members of the bylaws task force being miffed over the spanking they received from the Assembly last month. Oh, and by the way: The bylaw revisions were rebuffed by an Assembly where delegates who were NOT accredited outnumbered those who were by a roughly 2-to-1 margin.
Monday, November 16, 2009 10:49:09 AM by Jack Morris
My APR had no real meaning to my career, although I was gung ho early on. As usual Art has an interesting proposal about reorienting the process to career entry. I think it's worth a try. APR has become one of PRSA's merit badges rather than useful we've gotten heavy on self-congratulation and weak on meaningful professional standards and on forums for colleague-to-colleague exchanges. We've declined into a mechanism for selling instructional services, much as the American Management Assn. did.
Monday, November 16, 2009 10:49:52 AM by Abbie S. Fink
Art - thank you for this post. As a 25-year member of PRSA and the incoming president of the Phoenix chapter, I wholeheartedly support this position. I value the importance of continuing education and professional development. When I was just three years into my career and ineligible to sit for the APR I chose to complete a master's degree in mass communications/marketing. That degree has served me well-not only did it further my knowledge in my chosen profession but allowed me to take business classes, which provided the foundation for advancement in my career.
I have served on a number of board of directors, both locally and nationally, have participated in leadership institutes and training sessions. I applaud those that have achieved APR but that designation does not necessarily provide the background and skills necessary to be a leader. Demonstrated ability and willingness to serve should be at the forefront for consideration for national office.
Monday, November 16, 2009 11:02:33 AM by Ken Scudder
Could not agree with you more, Art. Very disappointing that the APR requirement still exists. I realize it's difficult for those who took the time and trouble to become APR to allow those of us who haven't to run for the same offices, but you have succinctly outlined the long-term ramifications of such a policy.
Monday, November 16, 2009 11:05:15 AM by Anonymous
Sorry, but I was one of those who voted to keep the APR in place. It is an important piece of the profession and therefore, should be in place for our national leaders.
Our chapter likened it to "practicing what you preach." I worked hard to get my APR and am proud to use it on my cards, on my e-mails and in proposals. It shows my commitment to the profession.
Monday, November 16, 2009 11:24:51 AM by Anonymous
I must respectfully disagree with you. I am part of the group that kept the pressure up until this bizarre resolution failed. If we have an accreditation process, we need to have our leaders practice what they preach. I'm proud to have the letters APR after my name.
Monday, November 16, 2009 11:29:20 AM by Aaron Ellis
As a PRSA National Capital Chapter Assembly delegate and a long-time APR, I was one of those who voted DOWN the proposal to allow non-APR accredited individuals from serving on the national PRSA board of directors. If the APR accredition process is to have any value, now or in the future, the national board should set the example of the value of this important distinction. And for those in the profession who "don't have the time" to invest in getting their APR, I can only say that everyone is busy, so it's a darned poor excuse for delaying getting this valuable credential, and the background and education that goes with it.
Monday, November 16, 2009 11:32:10 AM by Tim Penning, APR
I have APR and advocate for it, but I agree that the insistence on it is premature. Denying participation of seasoned veterans without APR not only denies them voice, but denies other PRSA members the benefit of networking with these colleagues. PRSA should take a long view and encourage, but not enforce, the APR credential.
On the other hand, most if not all of these seasoned professionals should have the experience and knowledge to pass the APR exam. Why would they not take the test?
Monday, November 16, 2009 11:37:19 AM by Anonymous
I was sitting in the audience in San Diego.
If Stevens felt this passionate and he makes some great arguments why didin't he stand up and speak out?? He was a member of the Task Force, his arguments would have carried weight. He's a poweful speaker.
If you want change, you gotta be prepared to stand up, speak out and fight for it. Sitting back, watching which way the audience is going, staying silent and then griping after the fact isn't leadership and during that debate, powerful leadership could have swayed the day, at least that's what seemed like from back in the gallery.
But he is spot on in terms of one point: the Assembly delegates, nearly all APR, are more comfortable with their own level of mediocrity than with worrying about attracting industry leaders like Iwata. There was a woman who proposed to do away with the requirement that to be a PRSA officer, you have to first serve on the Board just SO someone like Iwata could be attracted without having to spend 6 years in "service." But then some dithery current Board member got up and rambled on about how HARD it was to understand how PRSA worked, it took HER a year, etc. So the sheep (sorry, delegates) listened to her, never stopped to think "is she the norm, or could perhaps a major agency CEO or IBM's senior person figure it out?" and they voted to keep that barrier as well.
PRSA has been hijacked by the likes of Weiss, Julin, Cherenson freelancers, small agency types and that pattern will be difficult to break. McCormick is corporate, Fiske is an educator, but then if tradition holds, up comes Tate, a small agency person again.
The only reason some senior industry types stay with PRSA is because of Page's antiquated membership requirements no counselors, no consultants, only one person from each corporation or agency or else Page would have all the senior people.
Monday, November 16, 2009 11:39:14 AM by Anonymous
As usual Art is right on in his comments. PRSA risks becoming the "minors" to the Page Society or PR Seminar "majors".
Too bad - even a blend or % option of national board and chapter officers would be better than exclusivity. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. However, it was a great conference - politics notwitshrtanding...Next year in DC shoudl be interesting!
Monday, November 16, 2009 11:56:16 AM by Jonathan Bailey
Well said, Art. As a former PRSA Chapter President, I was told to keep my non-APR status and negative views on the subject quiet while in office. Now with more than 25 years under my belt in this profession, APR has become irrelevant and unnecessary. Not once have I been asked by a prospective client if I was accredited, and never has it stood in my way of giving knowledgeable and well-schooled counsel to my clients. I applaud those that have chosen to become accredited for their dedication to the field. However, I do not feel it should be required.
Monday, November 16, 2009 11:57:32 AM by Anonymous
Right on. In more than 30 years as a PR professional and a past PRSA local board member, no one has ever asked if i had the APR designation. It makes no sense to become APR accredited if PRSA doesn't actively market and promote the benefits of being APR.
Monday, November 16, 2009 12:27:20 PM by Jodi Horton, APR
Although I appreciate hearing your point of view, I respectfully disagree with your premise. If the APR has no value real or perceived why would anyone bother to engage in the study or the testing. I took my exam after more than ten years in the field, at a point in my career when I was ready to expand my horizons and engage in a much broader dialogue. I believe our PRSA leaders should be similarly prepared.
Monday, November 16, 2009 12:28:36 PM by Anonymous
Hmmm. I don't see this referenced in PRSA Issues and Trends this morning.
Monday, November 16, 2009 12:30:00 PM by Anonymous
PRSA has greater problems beyond the APR! After paying a couple hundred dollars for membership, they expect you to pay $100-$200 for Webinars that the speaker can, and probably does, benefit from increased sales leads. Why would I pay to attend a Webinar when the speaker has a vested interest in selling me their services???
Monday, November 16, 2009 12:31:57 PM by Anonymous
As the Art Dog barks, lttle dogs should bite. Democracy is the driving fundamental value of PRSA. However, when one obtains power by democratic means, he is sorely tempted to retain that power by elitist methods, such as creating legalistic mechanisms to deny the great unwashed any power. Hitler did this. Obama is trying to do it. Why should PRSA "leaders" be any different.
ATTENTION little dogs. Big Dog Art is correct. And, it is time to bite somebody.... Of course, when he was on the PRSA Board, and in power, things were different....
The pigs are in the big house With their silver spoon And Art's outside in pig shit Braying at the moon
Monday, November 16, 2009 12:36:06 PM by MARILYN CLARK (Columbus, OH)
I am a single practitioner, also, and have never undertaken the APR because there's no real advantage in my business. For many of us who have been in the field for a long time, the knowledge and skills addressed in the course and exam have been internalized for years. There is NOTHING that substitutes experience, and much of what a professional encounters requires creative solutions based on that and common sense. I agree that it would make more sense to encourage those at an earlier stage of their careers to accredit. I agree with Art Stevens, that lack of an APR should NOT disqualify an otherwise excellent practitioner from national PRSA board membership or being an officer.
Monday, November 16, 2009 12:36:22 PM by Andrew McGowan
Right on, Art. This is one more step by PRSA in trying to make accreditation meaningful negativelyby removing rights from non-accredited members. They should be looking for positve ways to make it meaningful. Such as the suggestion I made some years ago: offer any nonprofit organiation a free one-hour consultation with an APR.
Monday, November 16, 2009 1:25:09 PM by Dan Keeney, APR
Art: The leadership of the organization presented bylaws that DECOUPLED the APR from service on the board. The PRSA General Assembly acted AGAINST the leadership of the organization by AMENDING the bylaws to preserve the requirement of APR for the board. It was the assembly that gutted the true intent of the bylaws change not the organization's leadership. The leadership presented a highly progressive set of proposed changes, the vast majority of which were stripped from the approved document. Your assessment of the intent of the organization's leadership is 100 percent wrong.
Monday, November 16, 2009 1:46:36 PM by Eva Keiser, APR
What this argument is missing is if these leaders within the industry want to be involved why aren't the stepping up and taking the APR test. For anyone with 15-20 years experience in the industry, passing the accreditation test should relatively simple. Having the APR requirement for PRSA leaders illustrates the candidate (and leader's) commitment to the profession.
Monday, November 16, 2009 1:52:18 PM by Anonymous
Yes, it’s true that the APR is a filter, a sieve that separates the fat from the substance. We’re proud to be an exclusive club of people who give a damn that public relations as a profession is a real, defensible management operation and not a tactical tool invoked for a particular purpose or to serve an organization when it sees fit. That’s the whole point of the APR. If only a small, discriminating group of people believe in it and achieve it, so be it. If you don’t have time for the APR, or you somehow feel above it because of accolades or years you’ve accrued, that’s okay. Keep on doing what you are doing, but don’t presume it’s pr you’re doing, and don’t be bothered when we say we don’t want you to lead us.
Monday, November 16, 2009 2:20:27 PM by Anonymous
Art nails it in his post-Conference analysis. As an APR, PRSA Fellow, and former UAB Chair, I have witnessed years of political infighting and undercurrents that have diminished PRSA. Appropriately, many leaders of our profession have moved on in search of a better organizational option.
Monday, November 16, 2009 2:58:29 PM by Barbara Burfeind, APR
While Mr. Stevens has a right to his opinion, readers should know that many delegates would disagree with him. As a delegate myself, I think the democratic process worked well for the assembly. Members spoke through the votes of their assembly delegates. I appreciate the Task Force’s work that went into the bylaw revision, but to presume that the assembly would “rubber-stamp” the document without input, discussion, or changes, is not democracy. On the surface it may look like the revised bylaws were pushed back and not accepted, but the debate and discussion gave significant visibility to what members want and provided alternatives to expand membership. The assembly was proof to me that our democratic process is alive and well in PRSA! As to “communications” professionals being excluded – also not true. I have never had a title that included “PR.” This is not about titles. The PRSA application process already does what the proposed bylaw revision suggested: adding “Communications” to the membership description. There is no reason to add this wording. There are many PRSA members working in jobs with “communications” in the description or title, but more importantly they fulfill the requirements for PRSA membership according to the application. I also think the assembly was a ringing endorsement for the APR (Accredited in Public Relations) and for the PRSA brand. Every member is encouraged to pursue accreditation, and great effort has gone into providing classes and opportunities to do so. PRSA needs to find ways to assist senior PR professionals in pursuing their APR as well. Several suggestions were made during the assembly that should be studied and pursued. Accreditation is a core foundation to the Society and reinforces its importance by being a prerequisite for National board members. We definitely need to improve and increase our marketing of the program, but not reduce the requirement. Accreditation fulfills one of the PRSA goals of lifelong learning – and encourages giving back to the Society through the required maintenance credit. As to the “allowing all members to vote,” – you left out that the assembly delegates passed a resolution to establish policy for campaigning and how to address such a vote, rather than pass this bylaw without any such policy or process in place. So if and when this revision was to pass, there would not be a major scramble to put something together after the fact. I think members will consider voting for the “all members to vote,” but they wanted the policy set first. While it seems a majority of the assembly did not agree with the revised bylaws as proposed, there were several excellent suggestions and alternative solutions provided in the discussions and debates that should be explored and pursued not only by National, but by the chapters. The assembly accomplished what it was meant to do and there is more work to be done.
Monday, November 16, 2009 3:48:18 PM by Anonymous
Art. I also was a Delegate at Assembly, and I am an APR. I couldn't agree with you more.
Monday, November 16, 2009 4:03:52 PM by Debra Bethard-Caplick, MBA, APR
I will add to my original post the statement that I took the current version of the accreditation test on three hours sleep (after spending the night with my mother in the ER) and with zero prep time or effort, and passed the exam easily, well within the time limit. As a disclaimer, I graduated in 1988 with a bachelor's in public relations, and have been accredited since 2001 (under the previous system). As for those who feel comfortable slinging insults like "sheep", may I point out that that is hardly professional behavior, and if you really had the courage of your convictions, you should sign your name to your post, like many of us did?
Monday, November 16, 2009 4:44:20 PM by Steve Lubetkin
You only get out of the APR what you are willing to put into it. I am continually amazed by how many PR practitioners complain about the APR not having any value, yet they refuse to use it as a mark of their desire to advance their professionalism. Look at the Chartered Financial Analyst credential. Every year there is a mad rush to apply for the tests and there are three levels you must pass to receive the Charter.
APR is something you do because you believe in professional development, you believe in yourself. It will never have value outside PRSA if PR professionals continually malign it, refuse to sit for the exam, and don't educate their own clients about why it's important to them.
And it's easy to complain about things when you don't sign your name.
Steve Lubetkin, APR, Fellow, PRSA Past National PRSA Board Member, 2003-2005 steve@lubetkin.net
Monday, November 16, 2009 4:51:25 PM by Cassandra Stalzer, APR
I'm accredited, long time member and long time board member and volunteer for my local chapter. Yet, when I dared to speak up on an issue on which I disagreed with PRSA, my posted comments were stripped off the comments section. How's that for upholding the code of ethics.
Monday, November 16, 2009 5:23:48 PM by Anonymous
I appreciate Art's article for bringing up points I agree with and points I do not. I too have 'started and stopped' the APR process for the past 5 years in my career. I have been an individual PR practitioner in solo companies, and to be honest they wouldn't know an APR designation worth from a hole in the head. Educating them on the worth of having an APR employee will take a long time for them to grasp - unless you come up with a campaign that rings, "An APR as to a Harvard MBA." Until we can claim that, the APR is segmented to specific parts of the PR industry such as PR Agencies, Top 10 National Non-Profits, The Top Government Companies and Fortune 200's. Guess what? The rest of us work for "the other" companies and practice PR.
For the mid-sized "corporate" PR Practitioner like myself who chooses to work for these companies instead of Agencies, etc., an APR is nothing more than a vanity piece of paper to our bosses. The APR has to be of more worth to THEM, than of PRSA. To them, the APR isn't looked upon like a CPA or Bar designation. I am a member of PRSA, and my bosses couldn't care less, they don't know the value. They haven't any measurement. If PRSA is doing this because they want to give the APR more value for everyone who needs a respected, educated, professional PR Practitioner that's great. If they are doing it just to be a closed PR club, that defeats the purpose.
I am not a fan of anyone who hasn't worked in PR less than 7 -10 years to apply for an APR. Then that makes it just another academic accreditation with no hands on work applied. Young people are doing wonderfully in education getting their BA's and then continuing on to earn MBA's and even Ph.D.'s without acquiring real job experience. You can also get your CPA the same way. An APR (at least now) wants an applicant to have it. I like that, actually. Once one reaches a certain job years of tenure in PR, there should be an accreditation of clout available. My only problem with that is as a 13 year PR Practitioner, I have limited places to go with an APR and not as big as PRSA makes it out to be.
If PRSA wants their officers to be APR members, that may help but it also may have the same effect as those that have a CPA and those who are Certified Bookkeepers. Everyone knows the value of a CPA , not everyone knows the value of a Certified Bookkeeper. If PRSA wants to place an APR as the top, 'inclusion' not 'disenfranchisement' is the key. The APR is a good idea and one of the best for our industry, but until outsiders know of its worth for those who have it (not just the Board of PRSA), none of this helps the Public Relations Industry as a whole and advancement thereof.
Monday, November 16, 2009 5:40:10 PM by Lenora Kaplan
Ditto, and I applaud you saying this out loud. I've never seen so many anonymous responses!
As a senior professional in the industry, interviewing candidates for PR positions on an ongoing basis, I'm amazed at the APR's that can't show me a professional portfolio or pass my internal testing. The credential holds credibility only among those who have it and tout it.
I strongly believe that PRSA should focus on professional development among all levels of it's members. I attempted to do that in our local chapter, but was told (by our APR leaders) that professional development should focus on our junior level membership. It seems that PRSA needs a new focus and leadership to elevate a profession entering a new era. As a former PRSA President once told me, the APR certificate program is all about the money!
Monday, November 16, 2009 5:44:51 PM by Anonymous
I'm a PRSA member and an APR and I couldn't disagree more with Art's column. I'm not an assembly delegate and I don't have a bone to pick in this issue personally. However, there has never been a day when I regretted that decision. Unfortunately, I wasn't so lucky to pass the test "extremely well" on just a few hours of sleep. But, I studied hard and passed it. Since then, I also have done more than my fair share to maintain my accreditation. So I didn't become the CEO of my company and yes, I had a former boss or two who told me they didn't care that I had an APR. But, I didn't do it for the promotion or because some narrow-minded idiot didn't see the value in my professional development. I did it for myself and since doing it, I've opened a ton of doors, both personally and professionally, whether through gaining respect at work and among my PR peers, negotiating a higher salary with a new job and not having to take the GRE to go to grad school. So, for anyone who feels that the APR has no merit, you're wrong. And for anyone who feels that it doesn't demonstrate professionalism and commitment, think again.
Monday, November 16, 2009 7:57:15 PM by Anonymous
The problem I have with APR and licensing exams is that they do not demonstrate your capability as a practicing professional. I remember taking standardized tests in elementary school and they were difficult for me because I am not good at memorizing facts and figures. My strong suit was creativity but there were no standardized tests to measure this. As a practicing PR professional, I feel it is more important to demonstrate to clients you have the necessary skills to develop and implement strategies and tactics that are compelling, imaginative and creative, and will produce bottom line results. In other 30 years in the profession, I have not had a client engage me in a discussion about Ivy Ledbetter Lee or Edward Bernays.
Monday, November 16, 2009 8:44:07 PM by Samantha Villegas, APR (Mid Atlantic Chair)
It was incredibly disappointing to read this article this morning. There was such class and civility throughout the discussion on the Assembly floor. I left feeling as though, yes, we disagreed, but we want the same things ultimately, and we’re committed to achieving them together. This public diatribe besmirches that whole experience. A divisive article is not what we need right now. What we need is a strategic and thoughtful way to bridge our differences and obtain consensus on a future path. I reject your assertion that our disagreements are the beginning of our demise. That’s crazy talk. Your article was hyperbolic and dramatic in a way that hurts us all. It was incendiary, and it burned more bridges than it built. The Assembly vote merely - and congenially I might add - put us on a different path forward. I am afraid your article led us backwards today.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:12:46 AM by Anonymous
Thank you for speaking out! The whole APR issue aside, I have always resented the fact that I cannot join my local chapter unless I become a member at the national level first. It's cost-prohibitive for many, and alienates them as a result. I don't bother attending as a non-member anymore. I've found other organizations with less bureaucracy to join.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:00:25 AM by Mark W. McClennan, APR
I understand Art's point, and I agree with some of what he said, and disagree with the categorization of others.
If folks want to read a different take on the Assembly, feel free to check out my write up.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:51:11 PM by GG Johnston
Thank you Art.
I have served on the board for the Colorado Chapter for several years and volunteered for my local chapter for more than a decade. As a first time delegate, I truly questioned the commitment I have made to the organization since it is clearly valued less on the national level since I am not an APR.
Our delegation had 3 APRs and 2 non-APRs and together, we voted to change the by-laws to broaden the organization's reach. We, as a chapter, and I, as a firm leader, value and encourage APR testing. However, this whole "Sneetches" approach to evaluating our members is maddening. Personally, I feel less inclined than ever before to get my APR because it feels like a minority of the members are trying to force something that is not embraced by the membership.
Instead of force-feeding the APR to our membership, why not step back and figure out how to make it more valued and more embraced? Is this how we, as public relations professionals, counsel our clients and CEOs? No! We don't encourage organizations to steamroll their stakeholders. We encourage them to listen and create compelling relationships.
Art, thank you for so thoughtfully addressing this issue.
GG Johnston, (no letters behind my name)
Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:07:57 AM by Anonymous
Oh, for heaven's sake. The APR is one more way to demonstrate that you know what you are doing. Much like a college degree, it demonstrates not only knowledge, but dedication, hard work and a financial investment toward one's professional growth.
Of course PRSA should expect its leaders to have this designation. How else do they make their judgment about your expertise to help lead others in the field through your vaulted job title? Through your paycheck dollar amount? Through the spin on your resume or agency brochure? Let those three criteria reign for the likes of IPR and others for whom I doubt democracy, or transparency, is an important issue (given their narrow, and perhaps elitist, membership requirements). We're talking about true public relations with PRSA. PRSA's work toward integrity in the profession should be applauded, and the APR is an important component of that lofty goal.
Anonymous so the IPR all powerful Big Dogs don't come after me.
Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:12:13 AM by Anonymous
You want to be a leader in PRSA? Quit whining and just get the APR! What's so hard?
Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:43:25 AM by Anonymous
All comments very interesting thanks to the Daily Dog for keeping us informed. I am a long time PRSA member, former Assembly delegate, and APR I also have a master's degree in mass comm and soon will coplete my MBA. Experience shows me that only that final credential holds only real value to employers/clients. Over the last several years PRSA has become irrelevant to me in terms of providing value I would never pay for my own membership, even to enable 'legal' continued use of my APR. If the value of APR was recognized by leading organizations, THAT would make it of value. Until then it's a personal challenge and achievement, with application benefits, but substitutes readily exist at a lower cost, reducing its value.
Thursday, November 19, 2009 11:53:58 AM by Vic Bolton
I believe the number of anonymous responses speaks to another issue swirling beneath the surface here - the perceived corporate politics of PRSA and the fear of some kind of repercussion for voicing dissent. The fact that so many APRs, Fellows, delegates, members and "past-whatevers" are out here but don't want anyone to know who they are is an indictment of the entire culture of the organization, which many see as elitist, exclusionary and even irrelevant in some respects. As is the case with most industry credentials that are voluntary (teachers, doctors and lawyers don't have a choice if they want to practice their craft), those who have the credential say it's as necessary as breathing air, while those who don't question whether they even need it. My own experience is that the only place APR is absolutely necessary is to climb the ladder or participate in any significant way at PRSA!
I applied to present a workshop at the convention a couple of times in the past (and at my local chapter), thinking that the work I was doing was unique and compelling enough to be shared with others in the profession. I was told by some of my longtime PRSA colleagues that there was no way PRSA would showcase a non-APR member on the national stage. At the time I told my friends that PRSA could not possibly be that narrow, but it appears that they were right. By no means am I asserting that my presentation necessarily deserved to be ed over the thousands of other submissions, but when I look at the workshop lineup at conferences and at the various webinar/luncheon presenters, it would appear that only "APR, Fellow PRSA" types need apply. Given the number of highly skilled practitioners who don't take the time for accreditation - whatever the reason - it is ludicrous to think that the only people we can learn from are those who carry that credential.
I agree wholeheartedly that the webinars and other learning opportunities are too expensive for the up-and-coming practitioners the organization says it wants to attract. With tens of thousands of us paying national, state and Interest group "dues," it would seem that the organization could afford to fire up the corporate web cam for less the $200 or more per person. I admit I know nothing about the back-office aspect of putting these classes on, but my nearly 30 years in business tells me there is a profit motive in play for somebody, be it the instructor or PRSA itself. In my view, educational resources ought to be made available as inexpensively as humanly possible, even at cost, a move that would show a real commitment to the membership and go a long way to enhance the quality of the folks who are hanging out shingles in the PR space. The net message PRSA sends is that it is looking to close ranks and be an exclusive club for those who will operate within a prescribed set of parameters, rather than an inclusive organization that welcomes all of those who aspire to work in this most challenging of career disciplines. The corporate attitude of PRSA is almost snobbish...
Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:49:34 PM by Anonymous
Let's get practical. If more top leaders in the industry valued APR it would become THE thing to do. Newer folks to the profession would be eager to become accredited because of its implied value from top leaders. I'm personally glad I got my APR more than 25 years ago when I was an up and comer but its not recognized much within or outside our industry. Still glad I studied and learned what I had not through working. I don't believe we should restrict leadership to APR's..it's done nothing to encourage more APR's. Let's let the bright minds and results oriented in our profession into the leadership ranks and find a solution..hopefully one where an accreditation means something in the marketplace. It baffles me that our own profession can't get this one right.
Thursday, November 19, 2009 2:45:28 PM by Rick Alcantara
Art, I agree with you. While PRSA should actively promote the APR as a professional /personal achievement it should not consider accreditation a requirement for national leadership positions.
Years ago, PRSA Philadelphia required that chapter presidents possess an APR. I did not, but was still able to increase membership, reduce costs, increase volunteerism and more during my term as president. In the same year, I was prevented from filling in for an absentee delegate at the National Assembly because I did not have an APR. As a result, our chapter was unrepresented in the voting even though I was at the conference site. Thankfully, the association repealed the APR requirement a few years later.
After my tenure as chapter president, I was nominated to the national board. Again, I was not allowed to serve because I did not have an APR.
So, two questions remain. Are all APRs great leaders? Art great leaders being left out of the mix because they don't possess an APR?
Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:04:59 PM by Linda VandeVrede
I found the study materials and the exam itself for the APR to be irrelevant, although interesting, and not a testament to what I've learned in 25 + years. I woudl rather see the ARP criteria go away and more PR professionals become eligible for leadership in the society.
Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:59:11 PM by Anonymous
APR and ABS are typical organizational scams get a meaningless (as people said I've NEVER been asked if I'm one or the other) title and pay your dues to keep the titles.
Also when I see "APR or ABS" it doesn't make me think that a person is better or worse than someone that doesn't have those designations. Why? Because I've met people with those these "alphabet soups" who are idiots.
Plus professional learning and networking have changed due to the advancement of technology.
Sorry to break it, but organizations and the titles that they make up are not worth as much as they once were. In fact, they are plain old-fashioned.
Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:28:24 PM by Richard E. Hodges, APR, Fellow PRSA
There does not seem to be much more to add to the discussion about PRSA actions, or non-actions, at the recent Assembly. Nevertheless the article and the various responding comments, regardless of viewpoints, were priceless for this PRSA member since 1957, who has been professionally retired for some years but is still avocationally active as a volunteer in behalf of certain causes and advocacy organizations. As one of the first in the South to take, and pass, the accreditation test, as a long-time ago PRSA national conference chairman, assembly delegate, chapter director, recipient of a chapter public service recognition and later PRSA's national Paul Lund Public Service Award and charter member of a chapter and university-sponsored Ga. PRSA "Hall of Fame", I continue to have plenty of reasons to be supportive of the Society and its missions, especially professionalism and ethics. Not able to be as active in chapter activities as in by-gone days, and thus not always informed about all the ins and outs of PRSA politics and issues locally or nationally, I found the articles and comments set forth above for the most part to be interesting, informative, thoughtful and challenging, with truly significant points of view regarding the future of the profession and its leading organization. These matters have created more meaningful discussion of important issues than this PRSA veteran has had occasion to note recently in any other forum . Congratulations to all who entered the fray. ..Incidenntally, in our area, many of us prefer to be considered as being in the "communication", not "communications" field. But it appears from the comments that "communications", which to some means telephone companies, etc., wins out with the majority of correspondents.
Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:22:07 PM by George Couch
I was a delegate at the assembly, and I was impressed with the assembly process and the PRSA national leadership that ran it. This article is mixing two issues - that of APR and membership having its say. The fact that membership does not vote (have say) has nothing to do with the APR desgnation. They are seperate issues.
The assembly decided (I disagree) that the assembly will vote on national issues, not the membership. In our bylaw discussions, that was not the wishes of PRSA national leadership. It was proposed and resolved for PRSA to come up with very specific guidance on how member voting would work if presented, and the leadership will come back to the assembly next year with that info.
As far as the APR, I am a big supporter. I don't want it to be a barrier to membership or a requirement. Having the APR designation doesn't make you great, not having one doesn't make you an eediot. But in an industry that is not regulated, the APR is our industry standard. I want to support that even more than we do now, and I'd like others to do the same.
On a personal note, it drives me nuts when I hear people say they don't have time to get it or any reason. I was 37 when I get my APR. I was married had a 3-year old boy, 3 dogs, my wife was pregnant, and she was in-and-out of the hospital from 20 weeks on during her pregnancy. I had my masters degree. My work could care less that I have my APR.
I wanted to have the APR desgnation as a committment to myself. And I think I am supporting the industry by doing so. If you don't want to get your APR, I don't consider you a worse or better public relations professional. It certainly made me a better employee for my organization. I hope people in our field can support it for the industry, not as a barrier to membership or any such thing, but because its our industry standard and a way for self-growth.
Sunday, November 22, 2009 2:43:06 PM by NJ KIncaid
I disagree with your assessment. APR has proven an important addition to my credentials in the workplace and with hiring committees at three colleges where I teach PR and marketing ethics. While I see your point about targeting young professionals, comparing them to doctors and CPAs, there is a flaw in your argument. There are curricula standards for medicine and accounting, but not PR. Some universities have outstanding, nationally rated programs where students graduate with the knowledge and skills necessary to excel in the profession however, some schools don't require courses in research and statistics, an ethics course, or more than one writing course, and yet, students in those programs graduate with a BA in Communication Studies and PR. At many universities, students are not required to demonstrate a mastery of PR planning skills with a culminating project or portfolio. Even worse, some schools have professors teaching PR courses with absolutely no scholarly or practical work in PR. How would these ill-prepared young professionals ever aspire to pass an accreditation examination upon graduation? If all university PR programs were to meet a professional standard, then I would agree that young professionals should be targeted for accreditation. The number one complaint of hiring professionals is that PR graduates are unprepared for their careers, especially when it comes to writing, research, and campaign skills. I worked and taught in the field with a BA and MA for nearly two decades before achieving my APR, so while I agree that it does not define a professional, I have found it is a valuable credential, especially working as an executive management peer with other professionals, such as CPAs, CEOs, CFOs, and attorneys, who value such credentials. PR still struggles to prove to doubters that there is substance and value in the profession. By demanding high quality academic standards and demonstration of superior professional skills, we will succeed in elevating the PR counselor's role in the eyes of top management and other licensed and accredited professionals. I have taken on the role of APR Chair in my PRSA chapter, because I believe in the importance of accreditation. NJ Kincaid, MA, APR.
Monday, November 23, 2009 6:45:28 PM by Blake Lewis, APR, Fellow PRSA
Thanks to all those who commented on Art's article AND disclosed their identity. I was disappointed to see how many people were willing to throw in their two-cents worth without identifying themselves. Lack of identity behind comments makes it difficult to determine deeper perspective and credibility. Sad that so many can bark under the cover of darkness...
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:55:30 PM by Paula Lovell
Bravo, Art! Well said. I think the point is to provide quality work and to possess superior credentials and experience needed. The simple irony is...many PR practitioners are so busy working (because they are so good) that they don't have time to seek the APR designation at a more mature time in their career. And the voting thing: what an insult to people who have been supportive of PRSA for decades.
By Art Stevens, Managing Partner, 
