The Ethical Optimist

It seems the PR industry is not the only industry that struggles with rankings and reviews.  My friend Ted Friedli gave me permission to run his excellent blog post on what’s happening in the travel industry and how it impacts us as consumers.  My guess is also that many PR people who work in the travel and tourism industry are concerned with unethical practices as they relate to rankings and reviews as well, so I thought it worth sharing.

“Basically, what you will have to do is write a review for some of the hotels listed on our website on a daily basis (one post/hotel review per day).  The review must be a combination of what other people are saying about the hotel on other websites and from the description of the hotel. It doesn?t have to be too long, no more then 500-600 words.”

D.C. Photo Fakeout:  The U.S. Capitol is close, but not this close

Hyatt Regency Washington’s Photo                               Oyster’s Photo

It’s been an interesting week since my initial post on the O’Dwyer’s ranking controversy, and it’s only Tuesday! My inbox has been full of emails thanking me for raising the issue and for “taking on” Jack O’Dwyer.  I’ve learned that there are some very strong emotions out there in regard to Jack and his take on the PR industry.

That being said, I’m not here to bash Jack on a personal level (and while some have encouraged me to do so, I don’t have a personal beef with Jack.  Moreover, if you feel that strongly, open your own can of Whup-ass).  Me, I’m just happy to see the response because it’s opened a discussion that is long overdue regarding the ethics of rankings in general.

Let’s start with Jack’s defense of his position, which can be found on his blog post.  Jack makes the argument that major firms, conglomerates and PR trade associates are not supporting O’Dwyers.  While I understand many publishers are in difficult financial straights, it still begs the question of “Why?”  Why aren’t the key players supporting your publication? In Jack’s blog he cites several examples, including:

Waggener Edstrom, with $119 million in revenues in 2008, 843 employees, and No. 2 on our rankings, has only one web/NL sub at $295. It refuses to pony up a nickel more.

We just don’t fit into their “marketing plan,” a marketing executive told us. Several other large ranked firms have the same attitude.

So we’re booting Wagged and the others off the rankings. They’re not “PR” firms.

Well, perhaps Jack has answered the “why” question right there.  Further, as Jack himself notes, the numbers don’t lie:

Conglomerate PR firms, meanwhile, spent $307,000 in ads in PRW from November 2005 to September 2006 while we got one $1,400 ad in the O’Dwyer magazine from these same firms.

Clearly, these firms are sending a signal…as Bill Engvall says in his comedy act, “Here’s your sign.”  In fact, you should probably check out Waggener Edstrom’s excellent response posted here.

The fact that firms report (hearsay) getting more new business leads when they hit the top ten is a sad commentary about these rankings since they are not an accurate illustration of the top 10 firms (especially if the top 10 firms aren’t participating).

Other voices in the PR industry are weighing in on this discussion, and I commend them for speaking out.  As an industry, we cannot shy away from tough ethical issues.  PR Newser has weighed in, as well as the ever-titillating Gawker.com’s post on the subject.  From the client side, Doug Fenichel’s blog “In-House PR” offers an interesting take as well (full disclosure, Doug was once a client).

I encourage everyone to continue this discussion, and I encourage the PRSA, Council of PR Firms and other industry groups to establish guidelines for more accurate and ethical rankings.  In the meantime, I’m not sure about taking Jack up on his offer to visit…I envision it would be a lot like sending Abbie Hoffman to a Tea Party Rally.

Wow, there’s quite a bit of buzz online in chat rooms, e-groups and the like about a recent controversy surrounding a PR trade publication’s attempt to charge a fee in order for firms to receive their annual rankings in the publication.

Here’s the deal, in addition to submitting your tax documents and other materials, you now need to pay a vig of $2K in order to get your listing.  Many firms I spoke to this week have decided to opt out of this year’s rankings as a result, saying this smacks of pay-for-play and is highly unethical.

I agree, but I think rankings are much ado about nothing. Frankly, most of the larger holding companies no longer rank because they don’t wish to submit their documentation.  So, it begs the question: “How realistic are these rankings anyway?”  If most of the leading firms don’t participate, they’re practically worthless.

Then, there is the question of authenticity.  There’s one firm that hit a list last year in the top 20. It has a revolving door of accounts and about 12 employees, yet claims to be in the $15million zone.  I find it hard to swallow. I know the principal of the firm, and I highly doubt he’s that big…tax documents are easy enough to fake…if you pay someone enough to fudge them.

There are plenty of mid-tier firms that don’t submit either.  Mid-sized firms that might be an LLC or a subchapter-S may also be concerned with turning personal tax documents over to a publisher.  There’s no telling who in their office has access to your information, and if that publisher has an axe to grind, there’s no telling how they’ll use the information in future.

However, the true story here remains the value of the rankings themselves.  In the end, they are only a marketing tool.  Every trade publication does them (so you can have your pick), and every local business publication does them.  Our local biz publication, New Jersey Business, simply asks what your fee income is.  No verification, no nothing. In fact, many local publications still lump PR agencies with ad agencies, which skew these local rankings.  Annual billings of $10 million, wow! Too bad only $400,000 is for your PR division.

Add to this the agencies that list one-shot clients versus long-standing retainer clients. You did a quickie for Microsoft? List ‘em! You’ll give the impression that a company is your client when in fact you have no ongoing business relationship with them.

Oh, and let’s not forget that most local publications don’t make respondents distinguish between local revenue and revenue from outside the market. So, someone opening a branch office in your market all of a sudden shows up at No. 1, when in fact they have a broom closet and one staffer.

Frankly, these rankings have become meaningless to the educated consumer. What we need to do, as an industry, is a better job of educating the business community about the value of public relations.   I think PRSA’s advocacy campaign; “The Business Case for Public Relations” is a step in the right direction.

Another idea might be for the PRSA to establish guidelines for conducting rankings that legitimate publications would seek to adhere to.  (Pay-for-play would be a no-no).

However, when you get right down to it, there is plenty of business out there for small, mid-sized and larger firms.  All have their benefits, depending upon the clients.  So, if you’re not high on the list, it shouldn’t impact your ability to secure new business.

I’m thrilled to be heading to Atlanta today, albeit as a substitute speaker for PRSA’s esteemed leader Bill Murray.  Bill kindly asked me to fill in for him at Ragan’s Third Annual Social Media for Communicators Conference.

I have the honor of co-presenting with Kami Watson Huyse of Zoetica Media on the business case for public relations pros being ideally suited to lead the social media charge on behalf or their clients and organizations.  For more information on the conference, please visit the website.