Come to the dark side

With many of us in this class graduating within the year, I’m guessing that a great many hours have been spent pondering what we will do with our lives after school. I think one of the first things we set out to decide is if we will work for an agency or in-house for an organization. It has proven a difficult task to get unbiased answers from public relations professionals on this topic, however, PRSA has an interesting blog up, which does not delve too deeply into the issue, but does give a nice overview of the two options.

Although my experience has been through relatively short internships, I have worked in both agency and in-house settings. The two are vastly different environments, and I think that most people immediately know which one they fit into better.

Setting personal preference aside then, is there a difference in the quality of product put out by public relations agencies and in-house public relations people? There are some great arguments on a PR-Squared blog for the benefits of agencies and among them are their large resources and media contacts. Those who work in-house make their case as well, one blog I found put it plainly, with the general point being that they are able to be on the pulse of activity in the organization.

Are these two sectors different but equal, or is there one that is superior? I feel that mainstream thought is that agencies are better, because they are more glamorous, but what real evidence is there? I feel that I have been continuously leaning toward the side of in-house work, based on it’s unmatched ability to know the organization’s needs, its people, and its structure. In my experience an agency must spend hours and hours to get a relatively shallow understanding of an organization every time they get a new client. Which side will you choose?

Names can never hurt you…?

In the PR Conversations blog, Catherine Arrows’ post “Time To Bend Gender Attitudes for Social and Professional” change, she discusses the role of women in the PR industry.  She explains that in a few recent events she has attended “feminization of the public relations profession” has been a main issue of discussion.  One discussion brought up at an event was about trying to get more “men” in the PR profession in order to be seen as a more credible industry.  At another event, the discussion was about that if the number of women in the PR industry were to increase, it would undermine the industry.  And lastly, at another event, it was stated that “women don’t do technical” so as the use of online tools progressed, the number one women in the industry would decrease.  Not only are these thoughts of women being discussed, but also different names such has “PR Bunnies”, “PR Poppets”, and “Fluffy Bunnies” are being used when talking about a woman in the PR industry.  Catherine also states that even today, there is still a pay gap between men and women in the PR industry.

So, why do we allow this? What can we do to change the way women are seen in the PR industry?  With all of the tools we have access shouldn’t the PR industry be the leaders in trying to change this double standard and stereotyping towards women.  Catherine also mentioned that not only do we need to protect the use of language that is directed towards women, but also towards all PR professionals in general.  Such names as “spin doctors” or “from the dark side” do not make us look very good to the public.  It is all about the use of language.  So what can we do to better this industry and its reputation?

Jeremy Pepper, blogger of POP! PR Jots, takes a stab at laying out rules for Twitter-ing. His rules were derived from his lack of tolerance for Twitter-idiocy. As an avid Twitter-er, Pepper outlines his set of laws for the Twittervese in a very simple, clear way in his blog called Twitteriocy.  I am fairly unfamiliar with Twitter, I do not have an account nor do I know much about this form of social media. However, Pepper does a great job of outlining the purpose, use and benefit of being involved in this world as well as the vital aspects of being a smart-Twitter-er.

One thing that significantly stood out to me in Pepper’s blog is that he confronts the fact that social networking sites, such as Twitter, are not for everybody and certainly not for every corporation. There are some companies that are way too big and have too many legal issues to be involved in something so intimate or casual.

Another point that Pepper makes, that I agree with is that it is important to be personal while Twittering. I think in all forms of communication it is more beneficial for the recievers to know the message is coming from a real person, not a faceless corporate entity. 

Lastly, a rule that I absolutely agree with in regard to social networking, is be personable and be responsive. In order for social networks to be effective, responsiveness is vital. I think that although Pepper’s rules seem simple and could be considered common sense, it is important that people involved in social media recognize them and consciously make an effort to follow these guidelines.