Will PR Week be better online?

Yesterday PR Week (US) did a short interview with me for their upcoming feature on digital. They'd already done a longer phone interview. This interview was done to camera (a digital video camera). I have to applaud them for immediately embracing the new format for the publication. That said, it got me thinking about whether the new format will make the publication better or worse. It certainly has the opportunity to make the publication better. A richer set of content and more community building tools could make the publication a lot better. But what will really make the publication better is the content. By that I mean the conversations they start and pursue; and the insight and perspective they share from their unique position. If they get this right the community will engage and the publication will grow in stature. I'm sure we all have views on what that content may be and I hope we all take time to share our ideas with PR Week. We will all benefit from a strong trade publication but if we leave it to Haymarket, the publication has a far tougher task than if we all make the effort to share our feedback and offer suggestions on ways to make the publication better. Julia Hood has a lot on her plate right now as she guides the publication through this transition AND searches for a new editor. The more constructive we can be in our help, the easier her task and the better the industry will be.

PR Week doesn't make the industry better

The poll I ran on this blog, while hardly scientific and hardly shocking shows that most of you don't think PR Week makes the industry better (38% said it makes it better versus 61% who said it doesn't - I have no idea what the other 1% think). At a time when the industry needs help this is rather disturbing. PR Week does have some rivals in terms of trade press but it is the most visible and the best funded. The publication will be changing soon as a new editor comes in. One assumes that Julia Hood, who oversees the publication will use the change in editor to also change its direction. I for one would love to see the publication focus more on giving the industry an insight into trends in PR and what products and services clients are demanding and for it to worry less about telling us who won what account. While the latter is interesting it does little to advance the state of PR. Now some of this would require the publication to invest in proper research and give reporters time to write truly insightful features on say the impact of social media in a downturn for consumer companies.

I appreciate that what I'd like to read about in PR Week may not suit all the readers but I think the publication should start by asking itself some pretty basic questions such as: what role should PR play in business in the next five years and how different is that from the role it plays today? From answers to this and other questions it could then look at what needs to be done to help the industry get there. This needn't result in the publication simply being a cheerleader. It can still be critical and indeed it should be critical where the industry doesn't evolve as it should. What is clear though is that the publication needs to develop a clear voice on certain key issues, issues that are central to the future of the industry. Being a spectator may be fun but it does little to really help. At the end of the day PR Week is a part of the industry and holds a position that should enable it to help lead the industry forward. I'd love to see it take up that position because if it does it will benefit the whole industry and may even make itself a bit more money along the way.

40 under 40

I was pleased to read that our very own Clive Armitage, the CEO at Bite, made the PR Week 40 under 40. The list makes interesting reading. Out of the 40, 23 are from agencies - does this mean you are more likely to be successful in PR at an agency or just that PR Week has a better chance of hearing about you when you work at an agency? The fact that did surprise me in this list was that only 13 are women. In an industry that seems dominated by women that seems to go against the obvious logic. Sadly what it seems to suggest is that while women make up the majority of people in the industry, men still seem to have control of most of the top jobs. Anyway, congratulations to all of you that made the list and especially you Clive.

PS I need to have a word with PR Week about the photo they used as it's about 10 years old!