But I get concerned when I hear communications professionals talk about turning employees into advocates by giving them talking points and elevator speeches.

Certainly, I understand the temptation.  For most of my 30-plus year career, communicators have worked in a message-centric model:  We create the content, determine the audience and distribution channels and push the message out.  In other words, we control the communications process.

That model is still important, and likely always will be.  But it needs to make room for another highly influential model of communications – one that’s employee-centric.

The proliferation of social media technologies has put a giant megaphone in every employee’s hand.  And as a result, they expect to have a voice … to make a contribution … to participate in the process.

Our challenge is to figure out how to help them be confident, genuine communicators on behalf of their company’s brand.  The first step to take – and it’s a big one – is to stop trying to control the process.  Instead of thinking we know what people need to hear, and putting all of our energy into crafting perfectly worded messages, we need to understand what employees want to know.  What questions do their friends and families ask them about work?  What company actions would they like to better understand and be able to talk about?

Here’s a case in point.  Several years ago in a previous job, my colleagues and I were working on a system to help employees have better – that is accurate but still genuine – conversations about the company.  In a message-centric model, we would have created declarative communications such as “Our Company’s Strategy.”  Instead, we used a Q&A format and selected questions that we, as employees, wanted to be able to answer.  At the time, our company and its stock were stronger than ever, but the economy was at a low point.  So one question was, “Why is your company doing so well in this bad economy?”

We told the story of how the company had recognized a shift in the industry early on, and as a result had gotten out of certain types of business and into others, which led to stronger cash flow that enabled the company to invest when others were struggling to survive.  With that simple storyline, we explained the company’s strategy.

But the question wasn’t “What’s your company’s strategy?” because no one ever gets asked that.

Yes, we need to craft clear and compelling corporate messages.  But to enable employees to be advocates of the brand, we need to treat the employee as a genuine communicator, not a company messenger.

Jana Weatherbee is Principal at Jana Weatherbee Associates, LLC.

Public relations and capitalism have something in common.  Both rely on some of the same principles:  relationships, mutuality and community. 

Capitalism is grounded in value creation for all stakeholders.  If business becomes more conscious, it can do what it does even better.  It can create more community, stronger relationships, more mutuality and…more profit, by engaging everyone in the system, and thereby creating still more value for stakeholders. 

Notice that the question is not necessarily about better informing employees to make them more credible—there are many, many reams of research about that. Rather, the question is about results. Indeed, the better question would be, “How may we know when employees represent their companies well?” The focus, then, is being able to recognize effective employee representation with the outside world when we see it. The best way to achieve that focus is through measuring employee influence on corporate reputation.

This idea came to mind during a recent PRSA Central Illinois Chapter meeting held in Bloomington, Ill. The guest speaker was Ellen Schank, senior manager of reputation leadership at Allstate Insurance, which is headquartered near Chicago. She discussed the importance of managing her organization’s reputation to protect the brand, develop products and services, and drive recommendations and referrals. Most interestingly, she also explained Allstate’s regular measurement studies of the company’s reputation as perceived by key external and internal stakeholders.

According to Schank, managing Allstate’s reputation is a matter of a multifaceted measurement effort. Data are collected, analyzed, and reported about customer interactions, advertising, social media, investors, analysts, news coverage, and other dimensions that bear on reputation. These dimensions address the outside-in dynamics for managing Allstate’s corporate reputation, and Schank explained that these make up the bulk of the measurements.

More intriguing to me were the comparatively limited measurements of the inside-out dynamics of employee representation of Allstate. As the company’s website says, Allstate is comprised of “approximately 70,000 professionals made up of employees, agency owners and staff.” Among all these insiders, field agents are a critical link in the reputation management chain. But what of companies that don’t have such a public presence or field network?

I believe focused research on the inside-out dynamics of corporate reputation for a variety of organizations is needed. Such research would require the cooperation of organizations that are also willing to participate (anonymously or not) in research that would be shared publicly in conferences and in print. An effective, reliable, and valid research design could be proposed that protects corporate interests and provides much-needed knowledge. We need to know not only how well employees play the role of ambassadors, but more important, what ways of ambassadorship are most effective, when, and why. I’d welcome the opportunity to work with any organization to conduct such research.

Pete Smudde, Ph.D., APR, is Associate Professor of Public Relations at Illinois State University.

 As a former financial analyst and corporate practitioner turned educator, I admit there are days I am ready to eschew public relations and instead claim economics as my chosen field.  Surely it’s better to be seen as dismal rather than manipulative, right?  But then I remember well those incredible moments when stakeholder interactions produced mutually beneficial change, not only in the parties involved, but also, amazingly, in the broader community.  What keeps me going as an educator is the desire for my students to have that same experience as change agents in their chosen settings.  I am a true believer in the power of capitalism and public relations when together they serve a purpose higher than making a buck.

“Public relations” as a term is mentioned only once in Mackey and Sisodia’s book, and it is in reference to free publicity garnered through “earned media.”  Public relations as a normative practice is prevalent yet subliminal throughout the text.  From the start, the authors use examples and evidence to assert:

Free-enterprise capitalism must be grounded in an ethical system based on value creation for all stakeholders….By becoming conscious, [business] can do what it does even better.  It can create more community, more mutuality, and paradoxically, more profit, by engaging everyone in the system. (p. 22)

 So what does it mean to be conscious?  Conscious capitalism, in their view, is not represented by the Occupy movement (backlash, but no alternative vision); focus on the environment at the expense of other stakeholders; or even CSR, which they argue gets treated as a strategic add-on rather than the realization that “a good business doesn’t need to do anything special to be socially responsible.  When it creates value for its major stakeholders, it is acting in a socially responsible way” (p. 37). 

 What became readily apparent to me while reading this book was that conscious capitalism – defined as a relational, value-driven approach to key stakeholders – relies on the same principles as ethical, effective public relations:  relationships, mutuality, and community.  The role of public relations in conscious capitalism is multi-faceted, challenging, and necessary in each of the four tenets Mackey and Sisodia describe: higher purpose, stakeholder integration, conscious leadership, and conscious culture and management.  In this and two subsequent posts (i.e., The Second Tenet of Conscious Capitalism and The Third and Fourth Tenets of Conscious Capitalism), I offer insights on the potential contribution of public relations to each of these tenets.  Let’s start with the first tenet of conscious capitalism; that is, what public relations practitioners can do to help organizations find and act upon their higher purpose.

The First Tenet of Conscious Capitalism: Higher Purpose

The authors refer to an organization’s purpose as “the difference you’re trying to make in the world” (p. 47) and note “every major profession has a higher purpose as its reason for being” (p. 49).  Ideally, public relations as a profession should likewise be “animated by service to a higher purpose, one that is aligned with the needs of society and that gives the profession legitimacy and value in the eyes of others” (p. 49).  Numerous consulting firms specialize in the development of brand platforms, of which the higher purpose of the organization should be a part.  Public relations practitioners can help organizations discover their higher purpose through the following framework I have used with both corporate and educational entities, based in large part on management gurus Collins and Porras’ guidance in their book, Built to Last.  Consider these basic elements of a brand platform:

Too often, the vision, values, and higher purpose of an organization reside solely in the minds of its founders or executive team.  These essential elements, when discovered and broadly shared, provide clarity in decision making, consistency in communication, and a shared purpose that can inspire employees and engage stakeholders.  From a professional standpoint, knowledge of an organization’s higher purpose enables practitioners to affiliate with firms that share their personal values.

 When clearly defined, an organization’s higher purpose guides its public relations practices with certainty.  If a practice doesn’t align or potentially conflicts with the higher purpose, it isn’t done.  Public relations practitioners have a viable role in demonstrating an organization’s higher purpose with its many stakeholders through actions, not mere words.  For example, practitioners can guide organizations to enact their higher purpose through philanthropy and community outreach but should also thoughtfully consider how a higher purpose influences media relations, investor relations, and even crisis response.  Infusing practices with purpose is our responsibility, and our expertise, but we must move beyond a publicity, or even short-term profit, mindset to do so.  Operating at a higher level of purpose renders decision-making that is strategic rather than tactical, positions practitioners to be managers rather than technicians, and enhances the professionalism and perceived value of the practice.  And that’s good for us and society.

Examples of higher purpose statements from Conscious Capitalism (pp. 46-48):

Whole Foods: Whole Foods Market is passionate about helping people to eat well, improve the quality of their lives, and increase their lifespan.  Our purpose is to teach people that what they put into their bodies makes a difference, not only to their health and to that of the people who supply the food, but also to the health of the planet as a whole.

Disney: To use our imaginations to bring happiness to millions.

Charles Schwab: A relentless ally for the individual investor.

Humane Society: Celebrating animals, confronting cruelty.

American Red Cross: Enabling Americans to perform extraordinary acts in the face of emergencies.

 Sandra Duhé, Ph.D., APR, Southern Methodist University

Edward Freeman’s stakeholder model motivates the second tenet of conscious capitalism as well as the practice of public relations.  Mackey and Sisodia take a holistic approach to stakeholder relationships and debunk the notion that certain stakeholders, namely investors, should have precedence over others.  They state, “Conscious businesses understand that if we look for trade-offs, we always will find them.  If we look for synergies across stakeholders, we can usually find those too” (p. 70).  The most successful businesses, in their opinion, take a systems approach to stakeholders. That is, a company’s higher purpose guides the tone and intent of interactions with stakeholders, and decisions are based on how well expected outcomes would support the broader, interdependent system of relationships.  Any favoritism toward a particular stakeholder “sets in motion a dynamic that can destroy the harmony and sense of oneness in the system” (p. 70).  A systems perspective recognizes that interactions with one stakeholder group have the natural potential to affect interactions with other groups, for better or worse. 

The role of public relations in stakeholder integration is in cultivating and stewarding relationships with key publics, not in isolation, but with mindfulness about effects on the broader system.  Mackey and Sisodia offer interesting insights on a variety of stakeholders, as follows.  I relate each to the role of public relations in conscious capitalism.

Customers.  In Mackey and Sisodia’s view, a business that only listens and responds to its customers’ wants is neither conscious nor driven by a higher purpose.  Organizations have as much duty to honor and respond to customers as people as they do to educate and serve their best interests.  But, the authors explain, education is impossible without first establishing trust.  There is no “one right answer” for how to address inevitable conflicts between customer wants and the responsibilities organizations relate to their higher purpose, but an absolute must is “never-ending dialogue” both internally and with customers.  Public relations practitioners have ample opportunities to gather feedback from customers, but that feedback is useful only when it is appropriately shared, directed, and applied internally.  Practitioners strengthen customer relationships (and their value to organizations) when they help businesses turn feedback into responsive action. 

Employees.  Mackey and Sisodia stress that conscious businesses hire only those people who personally connect with their higher purpose.  Internal communication programs, whether focused on teamwork, benefits, or policies, reflect the higher purpose and draw employees to a calling rather than a job or a career.  As a result, turnover rates at conscious firms are significantly lower than industry averages.  Employees are often the forgotten public in public relations, but practitioners can do much to ensure the vision, values, and purpose portions of the brand platform (for additional information, see The Role of Public Relations in Conscious Capitalism) are not only shared, but also demonstrated, internally.

Investors.  Mackey and Sisodia insist businesses should focus on long-term investors more so than speculators.  Quarterly analyst predictions drive expectations of financial performance, affect stock prices, and pressure some companies to resort to short-term measures to “beat the street” rather than focus on the long-term health and vitality of the company.  Conscious businesses resist this temptation.  The authors note that since the mid-20^th century, the average shareholding period has steadily declined from twelve years, to eight years, to well less than one year.  This trend has direct implications for investor relations, a highly specialized practice in public relations.  As Mackey states, “It is a waste of time to try to develop a relationship with somebody who’s not going to be there [for the long term].  This is true not only in personal relationships, but in business relationships as well” (p. 104).  Guiding investor relations with a long-term, purpose-driven, relational view will at times conflict with Wall Street perspectives, but the authors make a convincing, evidence-based case that conscious businesses are more profitable businesses.

Suppliers.  I’ve yet to hear of “supplier relations” as a public relations practice, but the concept makes sense as Mackey and Sisodia describe these stakeholders as “an integral part of the foundation for a strong and competitive business” (p. 112) and refer to them as “the most neglected of the major stakeholders at most companies” (p. 113).  Practitioners have an important role in B2B communications, which primarily is to preserve these essential relationships, and, just as with customers, to gather and direct supplier feedback internally so businesses can effectively respond to changing market conditions, expectations, and concerns.  In both education and practice, B2B public relations is worthy of additional attention.

Communities.  Mackey and Sisodia are quick to identify community stakeholders as “one of the core constituents for a conscious business” (p. 123).  Community relations has received ample attention in public relations literature and practice, but most often in the context of highly regulated, high risk industries and frequently limited to corporate philanthropic practices.  Dean Kruckeberg and Kenneth Starck’s proposal that public relations should have as its primary aim restoration and maintenance of a sense of community ties nicely with Mackey and Sisodia’s assertion that businesses are citizens and should actively partake in improving quality of life in ways that are driven by their higher purpose.  In their book, Public Relations and Community, Kruckeberg and Starck write, “We maintain that public relations practitioners do not understand their most important role in society.  That role is to serve not only their clients but society at large” (p. xii).  Mackey and Sisodia make clear that serving society is mutually beneficial for businesses and complementary to conscious capitalism.  Community relations, in my experience, is the most impactful and fulfilling area of public relations practice because of its ability to affect lives far beyond those initially involved in any outreach program.  Public relations is a natural fit for community building on behalf of conscious businesses.

Environment and the outer circle of stakeholders.  Mackey and Sisodia consider the environment to be a primary stakeholder and likewise address the importance of what they refer to as “outer circle” stakeholders, or those who “don’t routinely engage in voluntary exchange with the organization for mutual benefit” (p. 153), including media, activists, unions, competitors, and government.  I find it ironic, and admittedly disheartening, that the practice of public relations is so frequently (and narrowly) associated with media relations.  Given that Mackey and other CEOs view media as a secondary public, is it any wonder practitioners struggle for a seat at the executive decision-making table?  How can we better demonstrate public relations as making a valuable contribution to those stakeholders considered most important in conscious C-suites, including employees, suppliers, customers, communities, and investors?  In our quest to be effective change agents and trusted advisors, we must align our communication expertise with an applied knowledge of how businesses operate financially, socially, and strategically.  Only then can we take an active role in helping companies become more conscious and, ultimately, more trusted.

Sandra Duhé, Ph.D., APR, Southern Methodist University

In the third (conscious leadership) and fourth (conscious culture and management) tenets of conscious capitalism, Mackey and Sisodia highlight the importance of not only trust, but also love and care within organizations, noting “love and care are not weak virtues; they are the strongest of all human traits” (p. 225).  These elements are key in leadership, culture, and management, they argue, particularly when tough decisions regarding downsizing, outsourcing, and personnel changes need to be made.  Given public relations’ focus on relationship building and maintenance, counseling management on how firms can demonstrate love, care, and concern to employees during good and bad times should be the norm for practitioners.  Their effectiveness in doing so, however, is directly determined by the extent to which love, care, and a purpose higher than profit-making guide executive decision making.  In conscious capitalism, they do, thereby allowing public relations practice to be conscious, too.

I would likely encounter some difficulty in finding journal articles, white papers, or annual reports that addressed the role of love and care in the workplace, but I have experienced the difference their presence makes in a work environment.  I recall working for Mobil while planning communications for our pending merger with Exxon back in 1999.  Our Exxon colleagues would joke that the Mobil public affairs staff probably scheduled a daily group hug to become such a close-knit, collaborative team.  Not exactly, but we were motivated by the relationships we had with stakeholders around the globe and a CEO (Lou Noto at the time) who told us, “When the (you-know-what) hits the fan, I trust you to do the right thing.  That’s why I hired you.”  For me, that was public relations nirvana.  We were very much a capitalist enterprise, and Lou (who never allowed us to call him “Mr. Noto”) expected a lot from his public affairs staff.  There were hard, challenging times, but culturally, we as employees were supported, trusted, and sought for counsel.  In turn, we extended those qualities to our interactions with key stakeholders and consequently were more effective in seeking mutually beneficial outcomes.  When I first studied Jim Grunig’s two-way symmetrical model of public relations as a communication graduate student, my immediate reaction was, “Yeah, I’ve seen that.”

Public relations will be more effective, more “excellent” in Grunig’s terms, and more valued in what Mackey and Sisodia refer to as conscious businesses guided by conscious leadership, culture, and management.  Where public relations practitioners can work to enhance the consciousness of an organization, we should.  We have an ethical (some would also say moral) obligation to do so.  In a 2005 Journal of Mass Media Ethics article on loyalty in public relations, Kevin Stoker (now at Texas Tech University) argues that practitioners should remain loyal to an organization as long as their voice has the possibility of making a positive difference.  If not, an exit strategy is appropriate and advisable.  Psychologically “exiting” an organization, while remaining employed there, never is.

Concluding Thoughts on Public Relations and Conscious Capitalism

Public relations is essential for conscious capitalism, but not in the form of publicity or media relations with which it is most frequently associated.  In fact, media stakeholders are considered secondary audiences in conscious capitalism.  How, then, can public relations managers best contribute to the effectiveness of a conscious business?  By realizing that conscious businesses are learning organizations primarily focused on employees, suppliers, customers, communities, and investors.  Conscious firms value and seek interactive relationships with these key stakeholders, and they rely on two-way communication to not only gather but also apply feedback internally. 

When public relations is managed with a learning, rather than a “telling,” mindset, practitioners leverage their boundary-spanning role by listening to stakeholders, conveying that information internally, and then assisting businesses in adapting, when appropriate, to stakeholder demands.  Practitioners likewise serve as educators and advocates on behalf of their firms.  It is not enough to merely disseminate or gather information.  Practitioners must help organizations maintain these relationships by putting stakeholder input to productive use.  When viable feedback is visibly applied, primary stakeholders are more likely to continue providing it.  Public relations is ideally suited to manage this learning process if practitioners possess the requisite business acumen to assess, filter, direct, and help apply knowledge gained. 

Communication expertise must be combined with an applied understanding of how business works.  A lack of the latter precludes public relations practitioners from being part of the strategic decision-making process, and why shouldn’t it?  Executives around the table have ample business sense.  What they need is credible communication insight that is oriented to the goals, higher purpose, and challenges of the business within its broader industry.  Practitioners must speak the language of capitalism and its related frameworks, including business objectives, financials, and value creation, if we are to best serve as partners in making it more conscious.

Sandra Duhé, Ph.D., APR, Southern Methodist University

I’m a public relations pro trying to run his own business and help clients achieve their objectives.  Social media companies that claim to have a secret formula for influence have me frustrated on behalf of my clients, who are wanting some answers about influence online. I decided to find out what the academics had to say about it. In a paper I presented at the International PR Research Conference, I lay out the base themes. Here’s what every public relations practitioner ought to know. 

The mechanics of influence online fit broadly into these three categories: Influence as a function of strength, immediacy and number of sources (social impact); influence as a function of membership in a group (group dynamic); and influence related to a person’s position in a social network (network position.)

Without getting too deep into the academic weeds, let’s take closer look at each.

Social Impact

Strength, “the salience, power, importance, or intensity of a given source to the target;” is a huge factor in whether we get influenced, and in identifying who might influence us. Define “strength” in terms of position in society — supervisors, parents, professors, and clergy hold power over us, and are important to us – or by subject matter expertise.  People with similar jobs or academic majors as ours, or colleagues bearing information we desire have great salience to us. A panic-stricken person imploring us to get out of a burning building does so with great intensity, as might a public speaker moving us with eloquence. 

We could measure influence or its potential by examining strength alone, according to power, importance, salience and intensity, either through surveys focusing on influencer, or the influenced.

Immediacy, “closeness in space or time and absence of intervening barriers or filters,” is another factor. Your neighbor, your parent, your friend are likely more influential to you than someone else’s. Research shows that your direct supervisor influences you more than someone higher up the organizational ladder, that people close to you influence you more than others. 

Number of sources, “how many people there are” carrying out influence behavior is also important, but it comes with a big caveat. Someone online with a lot of followers would be more influential than someone with fewer followers, right? Not so fast.  There’s a plateau of influence online, and influence declines even as scale increases – bad news if you believe a lot of followers makes you automatically influential.

Social impact is a good theory for explaining influence, and for figuring out how to measure it, because strength and immediacy might unlock how we discover opinion leaders.

Group Dynamic

Research shows that social pressure brought by members of a group on its members affects adoption of innovation, a good proxy for influence. The extent to which social identity is tied to the group is a marker for influence. Think of a group you’re active in – say, a neighborhood. Ever looked at your lawn and compared it to your neighbor’s? Do you feel compelled to take holiday decorations down about the same time as your neighbors do?

Professionals could measure the strength of identification with a group (for example, in internal communication) as an indicator of influence.

Network Position

Social network analysis, whether in medicine or computer science, looks at “nodes” – intersections – in the network and describes how information (or viruses) naturally flows or naturally stops flowing.  The nodes with the most connections aren’t the most efficient spreaders, the nodes closest to the center of the network are (because there are fewer steps between nodes.)

Think of a gatekeeper—perhaps the CEO’s secretary—who is one step removed from the most powerful individual in a firm. The secretary also is one step removed from the CEO’s direct reports. The capacity for influence is very strong in the secretary, as she is a broker between nodes and groups of nodes.  We could target her as an influencer who could affect both the CEO and the rest of the leadership team, and measure her influence.

I found two studies operating under the same rules, however, that reached opposite conclusions.  In one, the node did a better job of stopping information flow than spreading it more efficiently. In the other, a virus moved quite efficiently from node to node.

Think of opinion leadership – or stakeholder analysis – defining closely each of our audiences and evaluating them as potential influencers based on their position in an organization may prove helpful.

Nothing about this research says you can identify influencers with a single number.  Social Impact, Group Dynamic and Network Position each offer a potential window to understanding how influence works online, and how to measure it.

Sean Williams is owner of Communication AMMO, Inc., and is both a Masters’ student and adjunct faculty member at Kent State University.  

Social media measurement is a relatively new field, however a new report finds that the evaluation of social media is “archaic.” A new report in an eight-year study of social media measurement by Donald Wright and Michele Drifka Hinson found that organizations are still using “archaic output measures” when measuring blogs, social media and other emerging media. In spite of concerted efforts encouraging companies to incorporate modern outcome measures, their 2013 report results unfortunately show virtually no progress from previous years, according to Wright and Hinson.

On a different note, social media usage for companies is still booming, particularly for the consumer packaged goods industry. Research conducted by Marcia DiStaso, Tina McCorkindale and Alexz Agugliaro focused on a sample of 417 US companies from Fortune’s Most Admired list for 2012. They found out of the sample 96% have a Facebook page, 82% have a Twitter account and 72% are on YouTube.

Other findings at IPRRC focused on how companies have been using social media in relation to corporate social responsibility. In a report by Denise Bortree, she focused on corporate sustainability and its influence in the online arena. Bortree found a positive association between the amount and prominence of online information about corporate sustainability and the subsequent impact on the organizations’ reputational performance across three indices. Additionally, she found that companies get improved reputational effects by posting material online versus presenting it traditionally.

Internationally the use of social media is still booming, as well. According to Bilgen Basal’s report, Turkey is leading the way in Europe with a major rise of social media users. Basal found that more than half the population is on Facebook (a total of 32 million users).

For more information on the research presented at IPRRC visit Tom Watson’s blog FiftyOneZeroOne for a recap of the three-day event. http://fiftyonezeroone.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/pr-research-latest-day-1.html

The Twins have already won one 2013 accolade. They were named one of the nation’s top workplaces in Workplace Dynamic’s annual survey.

(Workplace Dynamics surveyed 872 organizations with more than 1,000 employees and polled more than one million workers to determine the top 150.)

It’s interesting that a sports franchise made the list of best workplaces. But to me it is more interesting that 22 other Minnesota companies also made the list. Minnesota has just fewer than 2% of the nation’s population. Yet if Workplace Dynamics got it right, it has about 15% of the nation’s best workplaces.

So what’s different about the Land of 10,000 Lakes? I don’t claim to know, but there are other indicators that something here is indeed different. For example, the 5% Club – companies that give 5% of pretax income to community causes – began here, and nearly half of its members are here.

Another example: A couple of years ago, some colleagues and I had lunch with an author, on tour promoting a whistle-blowing book on bad corporate behavior. The author had been a high executive with a major company. He was asked how he, personally, used his influence to convince the CEO to change things. The question took him aback, as if he had never considered the fact that he could talk back to the CEO. In turn, his response took us aback, because we didn’t know any Minnesota corporate CEOs who would not want straight talk from their senior executives.

I’d be interested in studying a handful of states, to determine if the attitudes and behaviors of CEOs, other top executives, and employee communications managers truly do vary sharply by geography. And if so, why?

Any takers? Anyone want to co-author a study developing data from your community?

Meanwhile, Play Ball!

David J. Therkelsen, MBA, APR, Fellow PRSA, is an educator at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

While I believe that public relations professionals should not be treated differently than any other group (like activists and disgruntled employees) on Wikipedia, I strongly advocate that their rules are followed. In the case of BP, they were following Wikipedia’s rules, as Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia commended. Arturo Silva used the Talk pages to request edits with an ID that clearly identified himself as a BP employee, but they still wound up with backlash.

Apparently Wikipedia is now considering if public relations professionals should be allowed to submit content for their company or clients at all. Wikipedia articles have high prominence in search engines and often contain errors, but they have great potential to provide the public with information on a variety of topics and companies. As BP spokesman Scott Dean told PR Week in an article earlier this week, “Our participation in the editorial process undoubtedly has resulted in greater accuracy, which, after all, should be the primary concern of everyone who relies on this resource for information.” With the goal of accuracy in jeopardy, restricting who can contribute most probably weakens it.  I’ll be sure to update you if policy changes are made.

Dr. Marcia W. DiStaso is an Associate Editor for the IPR Social Media Research Center, a Senior Research Fellow for the Arthur W. Page Center, and an Assistant Professor of Public Relations at Pennsylvania State University.