As I wrote recently, we want to open to Advocacy Commons to posts from others. Today’s “guest” post — our first — comes from Michael Klein in The Netherlands…

The concept of advocacy about, by, and for IABC is proving to be a tricky one, as the repartee in the Advocacy Commons has shown through the summer. Some think IABC and its officers should take official stands on external issues, some think IABC should focus its efforts on advocating for and leading the global communication industry, and still others want a focus on satisfying member desires and strengthening IABC as an institution.

It is clear that there is no consensus about which of these IABC advocacy roles should be emphasized. And, in my view, a key reason for this unclarity derives from the indirect manner in IABC’s officers are selected. For the advocacy potential of IABC to be unleashed, the subject of direct election of IABC officers is one that merits full and open consideration throughout the membership, centered around a bylaw change vote in 2008.

Direct election of IABC officers would allow members unprecedented impact not only in influencing the Association’s direction—but in actively determining its advocacy agenda. Those who seek leadership roles would not only have to propose their agenda alternatives, but advocate them with sufficient passion, clarity and lucidity to the membership.

There are some who may say that direct elections would be divisive and destabilising, and that the current system has successfully brought the IABC through some rough times. There are others, including myself, who think that the combination of advocacy and democracy would create a resurgent IABC that makes its message heard—and felt—as the leading voice for our industry in a fast-moving world.

But one thing is certain. The time for this discussion is now. Let it be open and thorough. And let it help us raise our game in the arena of advocacy.

We all know that customer satisfaction is of paramount importance to business success. But how do you measure it?

In his book, The Ultimate Question: Driving Good Profits and True Growth, Fred Reichheld builds the case that the answer to a single question is the best indicator of customer satisfaction — and the best predictor of future business success.

That question is: Would you recommend us to a friend?

It’s a good, provocative question. The answers probably do reveal a lot about the prospects for any enterprise.

This reminded me of New York City’s former (and flamboyant) mayor, Ed Koch, whose trademark was his habit of walking down the street and asking anyone and everyone, “how am I doing?” He got plenty of feedback — some positive and some, well, not-so-positive. (Was it a good predictor of success? Well, Koch was re-elected twice.)

I was thinking that we should try the same approach for IABC. We already conduct periodic member surveys and research, but this would be another way to emulate Ed Koch by asking “how are we doing?” and perhaps gain some additional insights — from both members and non-members — for our Advocacy initiative.

So, paraphrasing slightly, here goes:

Would you recommend us to a colleague?

Why?

Warning: This is a long post, but I hope you’ll read to the end. I’m deeply concerned and wonder if you are, too.

Who needs professional education?

According to one college guide, PR practitioners apparently don’t. In its Best 366 Colleges: 2008 Edition, The Princeton Review states, “Any major that teaches you how to read and write intelligently will lay good foundation for a career in public relations.” (emphasis mine)

Worse still, in describing a major in Business Communications, they write:

You’ll learn how to interview, make presentations, deliver a ceremonial speech, or explain a policy analysis. You’ll get practice in nonverbal communication, like visual aids, to underscore your points. You’ll analyze audiences in order to compose an appropriate speech for them. You’ll examine numerical data, such as survey results, and translate that data into helpful information. You’ll learn how to communicate policy changes to your employees and discover the best ways to use the Internet for the dissemination of information. You’ll learn how to communicate in a crisis and how to develop and maintain good public relations.

Ouch! With the exception of the last sentence, that’s a terribly superficial understanding of what we do.

Jack O’Dwyer challenged Princeton Review about all this. Their response was chronicled in PR Conversations but sadly was lost due to a technical snafu. Fortunately, Judy Gombita had saved it and reposted it here.

The PR world is already rightfully abuzz — like an angry nest of hornets — about the Review’s portrayal. It was first reported in O’Dwyer’s PR News (subscription required) and has since been picked up in a number of respected PR blogs, such as PR Conversations and David Reich’s my 2 cents, and the indignation level is high.

Ours should be, too.

Although I don’t normally duplicate postings, I wanted to share here a comment I made a short while ago on my 2 cents…

The Princeton Review just doesn’t get it.

1. Their ratings may be an accurate reflection of their survey findings — but they only survey current students, not graduates in the real (read: working) world. They obviously don’t seem to understand that current students are in no position to assess how well a given major is preparing them for a chosen career. It’s only after years of experience that people can judge whether their education had any value in their preparation — or whether a more specialized major adds value to a particular career choice.

2. “Popularity” should have nothing to do with an allegedly objective assessment of a career or major. (The Review lists the “ten most popular majors.”) Otherwise, why not list “sex therapist” and “comedian” as potential careers and/or majors? They would surely rise to the top of the list. (”Gosh, Mom/Dad, I see that doctor and physicist aren’t very popular majors; I’d rather switch to something that’s more popular.” Ouch!)

FWIW, I have a degree in the communications field — but my coursework included electives in English, business and other fields that leave me sufficiently “well-rounded” to be comfortable going into other fields, if I ever choose to do so.

Come to think of it, how does the Review define “well-rounded”? If, as it seems with the Review, it’s simply taking enough “different courses,” you could wind up with minuscule amounts of education in myriad areas, making it questionable whether you’d be a good candidate for many positions. That may work well for some people in some fields. But in general, if that’s sufficient for today’s employers, why bother getting a college education in the first place?

What’s wrong with this picture?

(Disclaimer: I mean no disrespect to those who have achieved success and/or fulfillment in our field without a relatively specialized profession-oriented education. But for the Review to paint the picture with such a broad brush does many educators, institutions, accomplished professionals and aspiring communicators a great disservice.)

We should be asking ourselves several questions:

1. Does a communication major/degree provide a better foundation for our profession than a more generic English or liberal arts degree?

2. How do we feel about The Princeton Review’s portrayal of our profession?

3. What (if anything) should we do about it?