Recruiting for PR 2.0

Sarah Williams, Jennifer Challenor and Simon Collister

Manchester Metropolitan University, English Mutual and London College of Communication

sarah.williams@mmu.ac.uk, Jen_chal@hotmail.com; s.collister@lcc.arts.ac.uk

Paper presented at EUPREA Congress 2012, Istanbul, Turkey, September 20th-22nd 2012

The PR consultant of today faces a communications landscape almost unrecognisable compared

to that of 20 years ago.  While both veterans and novices need to develop and maintain a new

and evolving toolkit, the rise of social media has made some of the fundamental skills of the PR

profession more valuable than ever (Bhurji, in CIPR, 2012)

Introduction

The media industry is experiencing an era of rapid change, and this has had a rippling effect on

the PR industry within the UK in recent years.

Solis and Breakenridge (2009) suggest that PR practitioners need to radically change their

practice, the traditional methods of PR practice, if they are to survive within the evolving

industry. Putting the public back into public relations has become a common phrase.

Conversation with audiences is now the primary aim and so the focus seems to be shifting away

from broadcasting messages to engaging audiences. This could be said to be changing the

trajectory of the PR industry in general in that there would now appear to be an increasing focus

on direct engagement with people as ‘people’, not as pre-defined audiences or stakeholder

groups in ways which require unprecedented levels of honesty, transparency and trust. This

change in focus prioritises social capital over other forms of capital, such as economical, and

requires a relationships oriented approach based on informal, social connections rather than

formal, professional ones. This approach is broadly the opposite of the mass media/mass market

‘churnalism’ which has been characteristic of the industry in the most part.

This shift in focus from broadcast to conversation, from control to engagement, has left some

practitioners fearful that they are being ‘left behind’, and arguments, such as those advanced by

Solis, add fuel to this fire.

The challenge for Heads of PR, agencies and in house teams is how to ensure that PR adapts to

the changing environment in a way which not only builds on traditional practice but also

encourages new and innovative PR practices to emerge. How PR rises to this challenge will be

crucial to the continued success and development of the profession. Questions that this research

considers include: is having an established experienced team enough? How are practitioners

tackling the transition from old PR practice to new? Do the changes to the industry in the past

few years represent a linear transition or rather a radical break that can be ‘managed’ on their

terms but which is forcing them to adapt rapidly and in an uncontrolled fashion? Is it sufficient to

be familiar with social media and are practitioners sufficiently competent to engage?

The research aims to identify how the phenomenon of social media is impacting the practice of

public relations. The paper considers the views of eight senior practitioners to investigate both

how social media is perceived by practitioners and how it is used, and how far practitioners agree

with the idea that there is no room for traditional PR practice in the industry anymore and the,

rather alarmist, notion advanced by Solis and others that practitioners who don’t adapt will be

forced out.

Literature Review

In the main the literature written in the area of social media in public relations is functional and

practitioner focused. While there are more conceptual approaches to the analysis and application

of social media, this paper will consider only those texts which purport to offer advice on social

media management to practitioners, since this was the starting point for the research.

Solis asserts that the PR industry is in a state of flux and needs to embrace the consumer

revolution (2012). He argues that ‘putting the public back into public relations’ is crucial and

traditional PR practitioners need to adapt and change quickly to digital media if their careers are

to survive.

While change in the industry is widely accepted, not everyone shares Solis’ views that the sector

is experiencing such a radical shake up.

According to Holmes (2009) those who have been practising PR properly for the past ten years –

that is, ‘public relations driven by integrity, authenticity, engagement, [and] conversation’ - are

probably still practising it the right way. Whilst change is clearly recognized [at a practical

level], taking a strategic approach to planning which is based on integrity, engagement and

conversation remains fundamental to practice. Holmes suggests that tactically, the traditional

process of PR applies to the majority of new media and has not been lost. According to Holmes,

PR’s have always told their stories to third parties, to those who had the influence to go on and

spread that message.

So PR 2.0 could then be considered as an ongoing evolution of the PR profession, which should

not be feared by veteran practitioners, and which, if anything, plays to their strengths.

Brown (2009) elaborates on this theme of progress which he refers to as the ‘concurrent

evolutions and revolution’ of the PR industry. He suggests that we are engaging in a PR

evolution where the core principles of strategic planning are similar. What Brown warns is that it

is a bold assumption that digital tactics are simply a development of traditional PR skills, he says

that they are the same but different. PR practitioners need to understand digital channels before

engaging, in the same way as they had to do with traditional media. Brown also suggests that as

specialisms with the industry grow, practitioners will need to focus on specialising their skills

within core areas. It is this focus on developing specialisms which Brown considers to be

revolutionary.

Bhurji (2012) suggests that the communication landscape has changed un-recognisably over the

past 20 years and that the perfect ‘multi-skilled’ PR practitioner does not exist. He sees that

multi-disciplinary teams will be crucial to the effective delivery of a PR strategy and that

individual skillsets will become as important as ever. Bhurji develops the idea of ‘ the Y-shaped

professional’ as a model which provides a distinguishable structure to PR practice; for Bhurji,

the ‘Y-shaped’ professional has expertise in three core areas, storytelling, content and technology

platforms, “looking at the key areas of storytelling, content, and technology platforms should

prove a more enduring framework for assessing the gaps in your own capabilities and evaluating

the talents of colleagues and potential new recruits” (20121). Crucially, while acknowledging

that some changes to tactical practice are inevitable, he cautions against some of the more

alarmist discourse from authors such as Solis (2009 and 2012) which suggests that practitioners

need to ‘up-skill’ or leave the profession. For him, it’s simply an issue of continuous

professional development, “keeping on top of trends and expanding knowledge across as many

areas of PR and social media should be our goal, but the skills we choose to develop need to be

more specific to our strengths” (2012).

1 Quotes appear in chapter 21 of ‘Share This’ a new book looking at social PR skills from the CIPR. The book is currently in production and, as such, page numbers are not yet available.

Earl and Waddington (2012) explore how reputation can be better managed and address the new

challenges that the future of media can bring. They see that there is a need to break away from

traditional media relations and for practitioners to re-skill for the future (2012: 226). Basic

training and core skills should be the foundation of the industry however whilst the industry

needs to support this transition, individuals need to take personal responsibility. They highlight

the fact that a relatively small minority bother to join a professional body and attend training

courses (2012: 234).

In the limited available literature, strategic planning remains a core theme to adapting to PR 2.0.

This strategic approach is also adopted by Sheldrake (2011) who returns back to the theme of

creating value for stakeholders through traditional strategic planning. Sheldrake’s ‘Influence

Scorecard’ builds on the Kaplan Norton Balanced Scorecard (2011: xii) and offers a framework

for strategic planning which incorporates social media. This framework offers an opportunity for

public relations, as a discipline, to redefine its role as a strategic part of the communications

process, and not merely a tactical one.

For Phillips and Young (2009), strategic planning for online PR reinforces the traditional

approach to objective setting and formulation of effective strategies for the organisation.

Defining their difference, they see that it is tactical creativity which provides the opportunity for

the practitioners to cross platforms and reach audiences digitally (2009: 179).

Speaking in 2011 at a PRSA conference, Richard Edelman warned practitioners that the industry

faced increasing competition from cognate disciplines such as advertising, and that the challenge

for PR is to become more creative, “Go for big ideas. Don’t wait for the ad people to have big

ideas. It doesn’t have to be elegant; it has to be clever”. Edelman argued that the boundaries

between PR, marketing and advertising have further blurred and in order to fight for survival PR

activity can no longer be focused on media relations. PR practitioners are in business to have

continued conversation with audiences but have to offer a blend of traditional media coverage

alongside new channels such as video content and social media.

For Bhurji (2012), the traditional writing skills of PR practitioners are not now rejected but are

more important than ever; transferring these skills and adapting them to embrace the digital

world is the key to success. It’s not a case of replacing old practice with new, he argues, it is

making sure that story telling is crafted for SEO purposes and understanding the style

characteristics for the channel in which the content is being delivered.

Most of the literature in this area offers strategic advice on the use of social media in public

relations and is authored by current practitioners or self-proclaimed ‘social media gurus’. What

most texts have in common is a commitment to the idea of an evolution not a revolution; that the

arrival of social media represents disruption and that, while disruption is threatening to some,

including those in established positions and/or those unwilling to change, it can represent an

opportunity to others. Solis & Breakenridge (2009) do advocate the use of social media, however

their rhetoric presents a more dramatic picture of the industry; suggesting that two way flows of

communication with audiences is a PR revolution and that there is an urgency for PR

practitioners to embrace the changes, which is perhaps driven by commercial imperative on their

part. They argue that traditional PR is dead and social media is changing the business of PR and,

unlike other authors, they do not see PR evolving, rather they present an alarming picture radical

and rapid change for the sector. Presenting their argument as a dichotomy between ‘old’ and

‘new’ PR, risks trivialising and sensationalising it which may alienate as many readers as it

inspires. Such a picture risks simplifying the inevitable complexities of periods of transition and

masking the reflexivity, creativity and innovation of such transitions. Brown’s (2009)

observation that we are observing a reflexive evolution and revolution better reflects the

complexities of the changing environment for public relations.

On the whole, texts focus on strategic approaches to adapting to social media and offer partial,

anedotal ‘expert’ advice, rather than evidence-based argument and analysis. For us, this also

raises the issue that strategic advice is not necessarily required by practitioners, as this set of

competencies, among senior or more experienced practitioners at least, are already possessed.

Rather, it is evidence-based, practical tactical skills that are needed, which poses a wider

problem for authors or ‘gurus’ as it is, arguably, only the abstract strategic information that they

can present. These tactical elements only really come to life when you actually do it since social

media is emergent and determined by the social communities. In this paper, we seek to uncover

the phenomenon of changing PR practice by investigating practitioners lived experiences rather

than relying on case studies and second-hand accounts of practice. The methods that we selected

for data collection reflect this qualitative practitioner-centred approach.

Methodology

This research project assumes a qualitative axiological stance, described by Creswell (2007: 247)

thus, “This qualitative assumption holds that all research is value laden and includes the value

systems of the inquirer, the theory, the paradigm used, and the social and cultural norms for

either the inquirer or the respondents.”

The study employed qualitative research methods because the issue of how practitioners engage

with social media and PR 2.0 needs to be explored rather than measured. We wanted to study

the PR population to understand the complexity of the issue beyond simply ‘updating skills’. As

a result, quantitative research methods were discounted as they do not fit the problem. There is a

need to understand the complexity behind the statistical data and quantitative analysis would not

allow for this.

The study aimed to understand the contexts and settings in which participants in the study

engage with social media. As Creswell notes, “We cannot separate what people say from the

context in which they say it – whether this context is their home, family or work” (2007: 40).

Therefore, a social constructivist paradigm was employed, which Creswell defines thus, “In this

worldview, individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work” (2007: 20).

The research explored the complexity of participants’ views on the subject and relied heavily on

their considerations of the issue.

Creswell (2007) notes that constructivist paradigms manifest themselves largely in

phenomenological studies, which concern themselves with the study of a particular concept or

phenomenon in a real life setting. In particular, this study employs a social phenomenological

approach (Daymon and Holloway, 2002) in order to explore how PR practitioners interpret their

engagement with social media and to understand the ‘essence’ of successful online PR.

Eight PR practitioners participated in the study. The participants were drawn from in-house and

agency positions and were either managing directors of agencies or heads of communications.

The number of participants was kept relatively low to allow time for sufficiently in-depth

interviews and data analysis. As Daymon and Holloway (2002: 149) note, “because of the depth

of research interviews and the extensive analytical process that is required, the sample is

generally very small, often no more than ten (Creswell, 1998).” The key characteristics of the

participants were as follows:

Name Position Field In-house/ agency

Matt Managing Director Financial Services Agency

Martin Head of Digital &

Social

Financial Services Agency

Lucy Head of Comms Financial Services In-House

Claire PR Manager Arts In-House

Stuart Head of Comms Local Government In-House

Jane Managing Director Consumer Agency

Zoe Managing Director Consumer Agency

Hugo Head of Comms Financial Services In-House

Fig1: Table of participant characteristics

All interviews were conducted in person and framed around a series of discussion topics rather

than scripted questions to enable the participants to fully explore and consider the issues.

Creswell advocates this approach, “questions become broad and general so that the participants

can construct the meaning of a situation” (2007: 21). This method enabled interviews to develop

organically and for interviewees to introduce aspects which the interviewers had not previously

considered.

This interactive approach to data collection meant that as researchers, we were central to the

process. In line with Creswell’s (2007) notion of researcher as key data collection instrument,

we collected multiple forms of data for analysis which included face-to-face interviews,

documents, literature and email correspondence which have been reviewed and organised

thematically.

However, we were keen to avoid the project becoming too heavily imbued with our own

preconceptions of the issue, especially as two of the research team are still involved in practice.

Therefore we have attempted to ‘bracket out’ (Creswell, 2007; Moustakas, 1994) our experiences

and concentrate on identifying themes emerging from the participants’ experiences only. Our

role in the data analysis has been that of interpreter, focussing on learning the meanings that the

interviewees hold about social media and PR, translating these multiple views into key themes

and ultimately deciding upon an ‘essence’ of social media skills required for PR.

As previously mentioned one of the research team is a current practitioner and the other has

recently come out of practice in this specific area, so for the purposes of this study, we have

attempted to put our preconceptions to one side to explore what current public relations

practitioners think about the issue. The process of bracketing out experience has been difficult

and after each interview analysis we had to ask whether we had subconsciously influenced the

descriptions with our own ideas and preconceptions. This was an important step as

phenomenological research requires a conscious suspension of one’s own assumptions (Daymon

& Holloway, 2002).

We have tried not to categorise the participants, rather we have tried to respect their individual

differences. To this end, each interview was individually scrutinised for ‘significant statements’

which may pertain to the whole, rather than collectively analysed, with a view to ultimately

developing an overview or ‘essence’ of the phenomenon. A complete list of the resulting

statements and related themes is appended. Meanings of the significant statements were

formulated and organised into themes, which were then assembled into a detailed analytical

description relating to the participants’ perspectives on social media skills in PR.

The next stage was to devise what Daymon & Holloway (2002) term an ‘exhaustive description’

of the whole phenomenon under investigation and its fundamental essence – that is the nature of

the PR industry’s engagement with social media.

It is important to acknowledge the ethical issues involved in conducting this research. We have

assumed a ‘neutral’ stance in the interviews, which proved to be particularly important as, in one

case, we interviewed more than one person from the same organisation and it was crucial that the

participants understood that the information remained confidential. It is important to note that

this was also vital for the validity of the data, as we would not have received such candid

responses had the participants not considered us trustworthy.

Some of the information given by the participants is highly sensitive and in some cases highly

critical. Daymon & Holloway (2002: 80) recognise that this is inevitable in most qualitative

research, “Many informants share confidential information that could jeopardise their careers or

even the future of their organisation”. In light of this, this paper maintains confidentiality for all

participating organisations and protects the anonymity of all participants. Creswell (2007: 43)

notes the importance of “carefully masking the names of respondents”, so all participants will be

identified by pseudonyms and general job roles only to protect their identities.

Findings

We have organized our data thematically to reflect the key ideas that emerged from the

significant statements. Overall two main dichotomies emerged from the research: the concept of

‘old’ versus ‘new’ PR skills and strategic versus tactical communications. For the purposes of

this paper, we have identified these as being our two key themes for discussion. A third sub-

theme which emerged was that of skills required, but this could be said to bridge both main

themes and so will be considered within in each theme.

‘Old’ versus ‘new’ PR

Many of the participants rejected the idea that ‘new’ PR required a rejection of traditional skills

and experience, rather they pointed to a blend of experience and developing new skills. Jane

explained, “If you understand digital and you are really good at the traditional, together they are

brilliant”, while Matt rejected the idea that PR couldn’t adapt, “If people are good in PR then it’s

just a kind of mind set. There are no reasons why they can’t get their head around what’s going

on”. For Lucy, social media is another channel and not a challenge to traditional practice, she

explains, “I am a traditional PR and am aware that the world is racing ahead with new media.

[…] Social media is just another channel, I accept it is a massively loud and noisy one, but it’s

just another channel”. Stuart concurred, “It probably gets over exaggerated by people like me

because I really believe it’s important, but so is the traditional stuff. It’s all about blending the

two.”

However, alarmist notes were signaled by a number of the participants. Jane thought that “people

that stay traditional are just tired. They will keep up for a certain amount of time but unless they

embrace things they will end up retiring early”; Claire agreed, “These are fundamental skills

now. If you can’t or won’t embrace them, then there may not be a place for you”. Stuart set a

relatively short time frame for adapting to new ways of practicing, “People who are sitting with

their heads in the sand saying ‘oh, I don’t use social media’ will probably find themselves

unemployable in three years’ time, not fit for jobs”, which contrasted with Hugo who envisaged

a more steady transition, “I think for the rest of my career there will definitely be a place for the

traditional methods of PR, but then maybe in the next ten years or so introducing the next

generation who spend the whole time on gadgets”. Lucy also disagreed, “I think PR’s with the

latest online skills may be able to reach new audiences but I am not convinced that it’s enough. I

think suggesting that PR’s who are not up to speed should get out of the industry is short-

sighted.”

A number of the participants related unwillingness to embrace change as being related to age or

seniority. Martin, for instance, provided anecdotal evidence, “one of our staff who left was a

little older and reluctant to embrace it”; while Jane simply said, “You have to be brave but it’s

not that frightening. I think a lot of it is to do with age.”

Several of the participants worked in the financial services sector and pointed to regulation as a

reason for their more cautionary approach to adopting social media techniques, Lucy explained,

“Social media is like opening Pandora’s box in terms of compliance”. She went to explain that

“I think many of us working in this sector are hiding behind the FSA and sticking to what we

know to be honest – this means keeping the niche pool of journalists we know well close in order

to generate media coverage”. Hugo agreed, “It’s a relationship game”, he said and he went on to

question the value of social media in that sector, “we are actually ahead of the PR’s on twitter. I

don’t know how successful it is because I don’t think there’s anything better than going for

lunch”.

Strategic versus tactical approaches

Many participants felt that strategic PR was still paramount and that the role of social media was

tactical. Martin felt that the advent of social media represented an opportunity for good PR

strategists, “I think that for a good strategic PR thinker the change in the media landscape is a

gift because it will separate the people who are just media relations managers from the good

strategic PR thinkers who understand the whole piece.” For Lucy, also, strategy remained

important, “My role is to strategically plan”. Zoe agreed, “The heart of good PR is good strategy

and clear objectives, ultimately social media doesn’t change that”.

While not all participants mentioned PR strategy explicitly, their descriptions of how social

media is being used revealed a more tactical focus. For both Lucy and Hugo social media is

tactical; it represents another channel for media relations. They see this as being a problematic

channel for two main reasons: control and exclusivity. In terms of exclusivity, Hugo maintained

that, “what journalists really want is a niche story that they have been given that no-one else has.

I just wouldn’t post on Twitter”.

The fear of losing control is not sector specific, so while Hugo justifies his skepticism for social

media in these terms, “I think there is a lack of control which I don’t like. I am a bit of a control

freak. Things can get misinterpreted, manipulated”, Matt is enthusiastic about the channel’s

potential, “It’s quite exciting because the digital side allows us to help businesses communicate

directly with the consumer […] and it’s interesting because it makes organisations think.” For

some the issue of control and social media represents an opportunity for public relations, Zoe

said “we have spent many years being brand advocates and custodians, that core strategic skill

hasn’t changed, arguably in our ‘always on’ culture, it is more important than ever.”

This raised the question in several participants’ responses of resourcing. “I could spend a whole

day replying to [unhappy customers] and that’s the bit people have to understand,” argues Jane.

Stuart co-opts other departments into the monitoring and listening process to spread the load,

“we tell our customer relations to monitor social media networking sites as well. At the minute

it’s a relative trickle […] but who knows how that will increase in three year’s time”. “The issue

of resource is huge,” explained Zoe, “social media doesn’t switch off at 5.30 so neither can you

which raises the issue of how you manage that; how do you stay alert to conversations 24/7?”

Technical skills were thought to be the key to successful use of social media at a tactical level.

Stuart maintained that “you have to be proficient in filming and photography too”, while Jane

explained that “you have to tweet, you have to use Facebook, and you have to learn how to put a

blog together. Video is important; we made 36 videos in one weekend.” Martin also made

reference to the ability to create SEO-friendly headlines for online environments which are more

tolerant of longer headlines. But the discussion about skills extended beyond merely technical to

encompass what might be loosely termed ‘brand management’ skills. In particular, participants

were concerned that coupled with a technical knowledge of how to use social platforms, should

come an awareness of the appropriateness of message and content. Some, including Lucy,

viewed practitioner’s personal profiles as an indicator of expertise in this area, “If there was

inappropriate content online then […] in terms of being a public relations expert I would

question their judgement and understanding of the role”, Martin also advised caution for

practitioners, “employees are using it and they have to know that their actions online can affect

their organizations”.

Discussion

Nearly all participants stressed the importance of maintaining traditional practices in the face of

new and emerging technological and socio-cultural developments, reflecting Brown’s assertion

that “public relations is the same in some regards as it was before and in many is quite different”

(2009: 114-5). For some this argument stems from the fact that for them social is about

relationships and thus at a strategic level doesn't differ from core PR

purpose/approaches, as Holmes argues “if you were practicing public relations the

right way 10 years ago, you're probably practicing public relations the right way today. Because

all of the things that social media has supposedly transformed have always been a part of good

public relations” (2009).

There also appears to be two main ways in which social media is

conceptualised by participants: there is either a focus on a narrow, tactical

definition of social as a message or content channel, in other words a

broadcast tool, or a focus on social as a strategic relational tool, i.e. a force

re-shaping how PRs must engage and build relationships across all channels.

Many factors may explain this distinction; for instance the question of age or

seniority raised by Jane may be used to explain why some practitioners see

little value in learning a new set of what they consider to be largely tactical

skills, while the focus on tactical approaches to social media may also be

explained by the dominant practices of the PR industry which sees PR used,

all too often, in a tactical role. This may indicate why advertising, digital and

media agencies, to name a few, could be said to be adopting social media

more effectively, as an interview with Robin Grant in PR Week (2012)

highlights, “Grant is lambasting the PR industry for 'missing the boat' on digital, allowing

advertising and media agencies to steal a march (Luker, 2012)”. This could be related to the fact

that these agency sectors tend to work at a more strategic level than PR

agencies in that they often work from initial brand or strategic planning

phase rather than PR agencies who tend to be brought in at the media

strategy stage. This reflects Edelman’s assertion that social media has

encouraged further blurring of the boundaries between PR and other cognate

sectors and that a focus on social as a tactical tool is a distraction for the PR

industry, “Do not think that PR is [just] media relations. If you have to read PR as media

relations, you’re cutting off your future. Give them video or other multimedia. Give them some

kind of bounce ... Go for big ideas. Don’t wait for the ad people to have big ideas” (Edelman,

2011). There is also an opportunity to use their diplomatic skills to overshadow competitors.

Jane, for instance, considered managing social media profiles “a real responsibility”. She

explained, “a guy in a suit working in an advertising agency, account managing a digital account,

could he give the right response to an unhappy person? No. But we as PR people know what we

are allowed to say, what we aren’t allowed to say, know how to say it so it sounds good.” While

this view can also be seen as masking the complex reality and reflecting the complacency of the

industry, since advertising agencies, like PR agencies, are re-skilling to cannibalise PR’s

traditional remit, there are advocates for PR taking more of a strategic role, as Luker (2012)

writes, “[Robin] Grant is convinced that PR is best-placed to capitalise on the changing digital

landscape: 'Good digital strategies all centre on relationships. PR is all about relationships and

that is why the PR industry should own social media and digital comms'”.

The concept of social as just another media platform requiring media relations, albeit of a

slightly different kind, is another recurring theme in the research. Social media, then, should not

be seen as a replacement for media relations, rather an extension of it or support for it. This is

echoed in Stuart’s comments about social media extending his traditional media reach, “We did

something a couple of weeks ago which was immediately picked up by The Guardian which I

don’t think would have been picked up by traditional methods, i.e. picking up the phone.

[journalists] picked it [the story] up on twitter and within an hour it was on their website.”

Respondents also identified a role for social media in extending their media relations, in helping

them to identify new influencers and what Martin termed ‘prosumers’, producer consumers

whose blogs have become as influential in some fields as traditional media platforms.

Conversely there was a view that social media can undermine some elements of traditional media

relations. In certain sectors, good media relations still relies on exclusivity and social media can

both undermine and remove this, as Hugo explained, in his sector, “ultimately what the

journalists really want is a niche story”. Broadcasting content using social media channels is

therefore not appropriate, and fundamentally goes against the nature of social media, since it is

multi-directional by default, and therefore does not fit the sender-receiver model.

Martin sums up the difference between strategic and tactical approaches to social media thus,

“It’s the difference between channel management and strategic thinking, so if you are a strategic

thinker who is always thinking about how you can best represent organizations, [then] media

relations and the media, you should happily let it fade into the background if that’s what it’s

going to do. It shouldn’t matter really. What should matter is how you best use the channels

that are there”.

The dichotomy of old versus new also played out in the research and this

idea related not only to old versus new practices but also to old versus new

skills. The visibility of social media platforms lead some practitioners to

worry about the lack of control, although as Holmes (2009) pointed out the

notion of control in public relations has long been a fallacy since practitioners

surrendered control as soon as messages were issued. What has changed in

this respect is the visibility issue. Where previously organizational

communications may have been criticised, rebuked or ignored by journalists,

this was a relatively closed environment and poorly targeted or crafted

messages were likely simply to be ignored. Making mistakes with content or

messaging on social platforms, however, is highly visible; mistakes will be

spotted and crises can quickly ensue. On the whole, practitioners are aware

of this and point to a team working approach, such as that recommended by

Bhurji (2012), which sees senior, more experienced, practitioners, working

alongside ‘digital natives’, which would create a more flat, or ‘social’

organizational model. A combination of traditional experience, coupled with

new digital and social skills is what is required, as Jane notes “They

[graduates] can’t do the content as well as the more traditional PR people,

but they can do all the technology.” This notion of experience is also seen as

valuable among participants when it comes to self-regulation, or awareness

of how your own personal profiles can impact your employer. Stuart and

Martin both referred to examples of individuals tweeting comments in jest

about their employers only to find themselves without a job, and both were

convinced of the necessity of social media policies to help guide younger,

more inexperienced staff in handling their social media profiles.

Conclusion

Overall, while there was some support initially for the idea that traditional practitioners without

digital or social media skills should leave the industry, this rather extreme position seems to be

rejected. Rather practitioners agreed with authors such as Holmes and Bhurji that the new PR

environment calls for a blend of the old and the new, cautious and careful experience combined

with creative and enthusiastic adoption of new platforms, in other words both evolution and

revolution, as espoused by Brown (2009). Participants identify a process of constantly learning

new things, playing with new platforms and openly engaging with social media both

professionally and personally, whatever their seniority. As Bhurji contends, social media

developments should constitute part of practitioners continuous professional development, rather

than a threat to their practice. The results would seem to suggest an evolution of strategic

insights and competencies but a revolution in terms of tactics and creative options.

Fundamental to this is how practitioners conceptualise strategic and tactical practices; at a

strategic level, they argue, little has changed. It is still about setting objectives, defining

audiences and designing messages and tactical campaigns to target those audiences. Social

media, they contend, is of concern only at a functional level, how can these platforms be used to

broadcast or disseminate our messages, how can we use them to help us target our audiences.

Interestingly, support for the concept that traditional PRs who are not digitally aware should exit

the industry did reduce as the interviews progressed. This creates the opportunity for further

research as to whether the PR industry is talking itself into a crisis with negative publicity and

creates the opportunity to evaluate the proportion of practitioners who are comfortably making

the leap.

Bibliography

Brown, R (2009) Public Relations and the Social Web London: Kogan Page

Bhuji, D (2012) Skilling up for the future in Chartered Institute of Public Relations Social Media

Panel (2012) Share This: The Social Media Handbook for PR Professionals London: Wiley

Creswell, J.W. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five

Approaches Thousand Oaks: Sage

Daymon, C. & Holloway, I. (2002) Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and

Marketing Communications London: Routledge

Earl, S. and Waddington, S. (2012) Brand Anarchy London: Bloomsbury

Holmes, P. (2009) For Good PR People Digital Changes Nothing Posted: November 2, 2009 7:37 AM (http://www.holmesreport.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/11/2/For Good PR People‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Digital Changes Nothing‐ ‐ )

Luker, S (2012) Robin Grant: A man on a digital mission www.prweek.com, Posted: Thursday, 24 May 2012, 8:00am

Phillips, D. and Young, P. (2009) Online Public Relations London: Kogan Page

Seidman, I.E. (1991) Interviewing as qualitative research : a guide for researchers in education

and the social sciences, London: Teacher’s College Press

Sheldrake, P (2011) The Business of Influence Chichester: Wiley

Solis, B. (2012) The End of Business As Usual New Jersey: Wiley

Solis, B. and Breakenridge, D. (2009) Putting the Public Back in Public Relations New Jersey:

FT Press

Woodward, S. (2011) Richard Edelman: Public relations must evolve, or get left behind

(http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/Tactics/Articles/view/9262/1032/

Richard_Edelman_Public_relations_must_evolve_or_ge)