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?

My colleague, David Murray, has written an interesting article in The Ragan Report (subscription required, but reprinted in his blog) entitled “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” In David’s own words:

“IABC, of course, is hoping to advocate for the value of communicators themselves — as well as truths and principles that communicators hold near and dear. But what are those truths? Based on our many years of talking to communicators, we decided to take our own shot.”

David lists a number of principles that could form what he calls a “constitution for the communications business.” (In a sidebar, he also applauds what he refers to as “the other communicators’ constitution: IABC’s code of ethics.”)

It’s a thoughtful, provocative list. I agree with most of them, but still haven’t made up my mind about a few. I also find myself wondering if there’s a message in here for our Advocacy initiative.

So I’m turning this over to my panel of experts — you.

Take a look at David’s list and then share your reactions with us, here. What resonates with you? What do you disagree with? Is anything missing? And, perhaps most importantly, is there something that’s especially relevant to our Advocacy initiative?

I’ll be interested in your reactions — and I know David will be watching, too.

What do you think?