So the ICCO Global Summit 2006 went off great at New Delhi with 225 PR practitioners attending. Kudos to the PRCAI for pulling off this one successfully. Picking up the threads, the first interesting speech is of Harold Burson of Burson Marsteller talking about the licensing of public relations (among others). A short extract from his speech-

Now, licensing, which, admittedly, is controversial. I raise the issue because I cannot think of a profession that is not government licensed. Medicine, law, accountancy, engineering, architecture – all are licensed. I know that a few countries even now license public relations. In fact, licensing was a lively topic among U.S. public relations practitioners in the 60s, 70s and 80s. The Edward Bernays I mentioned earlier, was its most vocal proponent. Though then young and largely unknown, I was opposed to licensing – which would have been limited, rightly I think, to public relations professionals who sold their services to clients. In general, after serving a five-year apprenticeship, employees of public relations firms would be required to take and pass the equivalent of a bar exam to obtain a license to practice.

I opposed licensing because I felt public relations and the firm I headed would be better served without any form of government oversight. Through the years, however, I have often wondered if the status of public relations would now be different had it been licensed twenty or so years ago. While I am not yet at the point of endorsing a licensing initiative, my present attitude is that bodies such as ICCO and its constituent organizations should put the issue on their agendas for serious study. The trade off is clear: public relations will likely not gain the professional status it wants and deserves unless it embraces licensing. Unfortunately, I have doubts that self-licensing will meet the test. It is an issue your generation of public relations professionals will have to decide.

Toni has the entire speech uploaded on his blog.

The issue of PR licensing is something we have wondered about among ourselves many times. Do we require it? Do a blogosphere search and you start getting the real story. I found an old post by Edelman that could serve as an example to why there should be licensing? It’s about a PR firm paying off a journalist to write articles for its client. He writes…

Our business is being dragged down by an erosion of the hard and fast line between advertising and public relations. We don’t buy space and we don’t pay off journalists. We don’t engage in murky relationships that are positioned with such code words as ‘doing community relations work.’

I am calling for the key associations in the PR business around the world to consider licensing PR firms in their countries to do business. We have, for example, the APR accreditation process from the PR Society of America. That effort to assure professional standards of practice is fine as far as it goes.

But we need to go further, to have CEOs of PR firms sign onto a code of proper behavior, that forbids payments to reporters, that mandates transparency on arrangements with third party experts and that bars a media company from having a licensed PR firm in the family. These standards must be enforceable, with the group given power to expel transgressors, then to demand a public apology and remanding of questionable earnings to the aggrieved client.

The case for PR licensing goes far back to 1992 in the US with the pioneer of PR, Edwards L Bernays spearheading the movement.

On April 7, 1992, a public hearing before a Massachusetts Joint House and Senate Committee on Government Regulations will address the licensing of public relations practitioners. No legal standard for public relations practitioners currently exists. Anyone can hang up a shingle as a public relations practitioner and often does.

The status quo produces two victims: 1) clients or employers of public relations practitioners who usually have no standard by which to measure qualifications and 2) qualified practitioners whose positions are demeaned by those lacking the experience, education, skills and integrity that true professionals have long labored to attain. Equally important, the public interest is poorly served when those who heavily influence the channels of communication and action in a media-dominated society are inept or worse.

There are also PR practitioners against the idea.

Jonathan Richardson says in his blog…Since when has licensing ever rooted out the problems of a profession? Think about law and the constant scrutiny its practitioners bear. I know many lawyers that are upstanding citizens in their community and beacons of light in their profession. Nevertheless, there are also those whose lapses in ethical or moral judgment tarnish the profession: a profession with high barriers to entry and licensing requirements.

Practitioners should stop thinking about how to create external methods to justify positions and practices, and start focusing internally on personal ethics and the integrity of their organizations. Rather than searching for the best band-aid to cover our wounds, let’s stop hurting our profession by falling on the stakes of mistrust and ineptitude to start with.

Stephen Newton says that the idea that only a licensed public relations practitioner would be able to act as spokesperson for an organisation or offer advice on dealing with the media, say, is clearly absurd. But it’s true that anybody can call themselves a public relations consultant, so what to do? The right way forward is that currently pursued by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR), of which I’m a full member. One day we may have Chartered Public Relations Consultants, conforming to higher standards.

Some more links on the subject by InfOpinions?
Technorati tags: PR, Public Relations, India, India Public Relations, India PR,Marketing, ICCO,

Popularity: 3% [?]