I’m going through this process right now, trying to decide if our financial model makes sense for the future. I feel like billable hours is so archaic, but I also think we need to track time in order to be profitable. We are paid for our time so some sort of tracking mechanism is a necessary evil.

I’ve always been of the belief that you would never go into a restaurant, eat a meal, and at the end say to the chef, “That meal was fantastic – thank you so much! I’ll tell you what; if I don’t get heartburn tonight, I’ll send you a check in the morning.” So why do people always want to do that with our invoices, AFTER they’ve negotiated a program, the fees, and paid a couple of previous invoices?  Rather than be stubborn about it, though, I’m on the look-out for new ideas.

Therefore, I was interested to read “Coke Pushes Pay-for-Performance Model” in AdAge and “Changes Afoot in Professional Billing Rates” in The Australian Business.

The genesis of both articles is that clients want to know how advertising, PR, social media, marketing…all communication methods translate back to results. It’s the day old question, but now instead of shrugging our shoulders and saying, “But your brand awareness is off the charts!” we’re being held accountable for true bottom-line results.

So, you say, who determines the value? What do we do about the time it takes to ramp-up with a new client? Does this offend the PRSA Code of Ethics? Do you think we’ll try this and go back to the way things are now? Or will we do it only if forced by our clients?

In today’s Washington Post, current AIG CEO Edward M. Libby has written an opinion column with an eloquent explanation about the very-much-in-the-news bonuses given to those AIG executives.  Be clear, he is not calling them performance bonuses, but rather, retention bonuses.  Continue Reading »

 Yelp! exploded into the Chicago social scene a few years ago and became quite popular with reviewers and viewers alike, claiming, ”Real People.  Real Reviews.”  Similar to the other social review sites, Metromix.com and City Search.com, consumers and patrons review and possibly reccommend restaurants, nightlife, shops, and entertainment.

Continue Reading »

Have you seen the New York Times article about using “striking words” in your news releases to gain the attention of reporters, especially on slow news days? Oh yes! It’s true. The article, titled “Need Press? Repeat: ‘Green,’ ‘Sex,’ ‘Cancer,’ ‘Secret,’ ‘Fat’” ran last week and quotes, GASP!, PR people who support the notion that if you sensationalize a headline, the story will run in most major publications. Continue Reading »

It’s been everything I can do not to comment on Scott McClellan’s book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.”  Continue Reading »

Blog written by Sydney Ayers, APR

Over the weekend, PRSA Chairman and CEO Jeff Julin was interviewed in the Denver Post.  During the course of the interview, the reporter asked Jeff about a somewhat controversial seminar the Colorado Chapter held last year entitled “Taking the BS out of PR.”  Jeff’s answer was elegant and to the point.

“There is no question that many people think public relations is simply publicity and spin.  That is a challenge to individual professionals and the profession as a whole.  For me, public relations is an overarching communications discipline that focuses on helping organizations develop strong relationships with stakeholders.  When done well, public relations helps organizations grow, prosper, and contribute to the communities in which they operate.”

Heady stuff that.  Convincing clients and others that what we do on a daily basis in’t about weaving stories, distorting facts and, well, spinning issues is a difficult assignment.  It is something we have to be committed to doing — PRSA member or not — on a daily basis.  We must make it our mission to encourage truthful, open and respectful discourse in the public arena.  Only then can we hope to turn the tide and fully restore our image as the trustworthy communicators we know we are.

Check out the full interview with Jeff Julin at  http://www.denverpost.com/businessheadlines/ci_8899305

Blog written by Sydney Ayers, APR

I’ve been thinking about blogging lately.  (I suppose it’s funny that I am doing that on a blog but there you have it.)  We have been recommending that clients become actively engaged in the blogosphere for some time now but we insist they follow the rules.  “Rules?”, you ask.  Yes, rules. 

While the blogosphere may seem to some like the Wild West, there has been debate as to whether bloggers should follow any code of ethics.  We maintain they should.  After all, they are taking part in the public discourse and shaping opinion.

Specifics differ but most codes of ethics for bloggers encourage the following:

Report honestly, fairly, and accurately – It is important that bloggers identify sources, correct inaccuracies, and distinguish between fact and opinion.

Be transparent – Bloggers should identify conflicts of interest, affiliations, or personal agendas.

Minimize harm – Just because a blogger can take anonymous swings at a person or organization doesn’t mean that is the best course of action. 

Be accountable – The most respected bloggers expose the unethical practices of other bloggers and abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

This in my mind is just common sense.  Maybe I am mistaken but I see the blogosphere is another place where people can debate issues, share information, discuss popular topics, and most of all, connect with one another on a global scope.  Of course, in the end, it is up to the individual blogger to decide what, if any of these guidelines he or she follows.

If you are interested in following ethical blogging practices, two good guides are available at cyberjournalist.net and mediabloggers.org.  Best of luck and keep on blogging!

Blog written by Angela Loiacono

The Medill School of Journalism used to stand on its own without an explanation. It’s one of the most highly regarded journalism programs in the country.  Yet, somehow the dean of the school John Lavine managed to taint this branch of Northwestern, and the Chicago Tribune told us all about it…a couple of times actually.

It all started when he made the grand decision to integrate marketing classes with traditional reporting classes. Now, coming from a public relations professional who graduated with a journalism degree, I know both sides of the coin.  But when you’re gaining a degree from an accelerated journalism program, you shouldn’t be forced to follow an integrated marketing curriculum. Sure, the fields are linked, but for all intents and purposes, when you’re learning journalism, marketing is on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Lavine, obviously hearing some backlash on his curriculum choices, wrote a letter in the school’s alumni magazine using unnamed sources who gave blush-producing praise on the new wave of class requirements.  When it all looked a little fishy to a Daily Northwestern columnist, he polled all 29 students in the class that the quote referred to. Every single one of them denied having given the quote.

Can we say convenient? Did he think that as the dean of the school no one would question his ethics? Did he not dwell on the notion that using quotes from students praising an idea that many others denounced might be questioned?

All the pieces fit together a little too well for Lavine to escape heavy scrutiny.  Pressure from more than 15 fellow professors pushed him to reveal his sources. Apparently, he already deleted the emails. And I guess Medill should start teaching its students that journalistic ethics don’t apply to all types of writing because Lavine clearly states that his letter is different from covering a news story — despite the fact that it appeared in a journalistic publication, written for journalists.

As someone who holds a journalism degree, I’m embarrassed that Lavine stands as a representative of the field. I hope he is too.  And by the way, the apology really doesn’t do anything for me — practice what you preach.

ONE MORE THING: Take a look at the quote that ends this Chicago magazine article.

Really John? Is that the method behind your decisions?