Public relations: a fifth leg on a dog?

While browsing through The Times’s archive today, I came across an interesting article from 1947 that sets out the newspaper’s view of public relations.

Thirty years on from when Basil Clarke started public relations in Britain by joining the Civil Service, The Times makes it clear that the industry had already grown massively.

It suggested the Treasury was now spending £878,468 a year on the wages of 1,100 public relations staff (including clerical and typing staff), a massive increase on the £21,000 a year the Government was spending on public relations in 1921.

The Times was sceptical as to the value of the industry, quoting approvingly from a White Paper on publicity for local government that suggested that “the public relations ‘spirit’ ought to permizeate the whole organization.”

“This means, in even plainer language,” The Times told its readers, “that men and women must know their job, be courteous in their business dealings, be ready to give the information to which citizens are entitled, and not hope to be saved from these obligations by a deus ex machina called a PRO.

“It is admirable doctrine and should be digested by those local authorities, for instance, whose most active interest in public relations expresses itself negatively, in attempts to prevent local newspapers from doing their duty, which is to give the facts about local government.

“Public relations are always part of efficient administration and they may need special provision and even a special officer, but, unless all his colleagues share his spirit, he is as useless as a fifth leg to a dog.”

It is an interesting simile. I’ve heard public relations being referred to as the tail of the dog before, but never as an additional leg!


The first public relations code of ethics

Basil Clarke, who wrote the first PR code of ethics
Basil Clarke, who wrote the first PR code of ethics

When it comes to most firsts in public relations – the first practitioner; the first agency – it is usually the United States that gets the glory.

But, given that September is Ethics Month for public relations, I thought it would be worth telling the story of how the UK can lay a claim to the industry’s first ethical code.

It was not that the American public relations pioneers had never considered ethics. Ivy Lee included an ethical element in his ‘Declaration of Principles for Public Relations’ in 1906. Also, Edward Bernays’s 1928 book Propaganda included a code of ethics.

But Lee only included ethics as a small part of a wider document, while Bernays’s code of ethics was as much a description of how public relations practitioners already behaved as it was an attempt to codify standards of behaviour that could be used to hold people to account.

So when Basil Clarke, the father of the British public relations industry, developed a code of ethics in the 1920s that set tough and credible standards that those working in public relations were expected to conform to, it was the first of its kind anywhere in the world.

The Code called for an end to anonymity in public relations. All public relations copy was to be marked with the sender’s name and clearly labelled as publicity copy, while the press agent would be obliged to disclose the name of his client if asked to do so by an editor.

As well as highlighting the importance of transparency, Clarke’s code set out that press agents should not accept fees from newspapers or ‘suborn’ newspaper staff to publish stories, while they should also be responsible for satisfying themselves of their clients’ bona fides.

It also judged canvassing for business to be inappropriate because it could lead to press agents over-promising about the levels of coverage they were likely to achieve. And work should be paid for by professional fee, rather than by the number of articles secured.

Its other provisions included that stunts should not be used if they were intended to deceive either an editor or the public; that press releases should include footnotes giving the source for any claims; and that, except in ‘special circumstances’, editorial publicity was to be offered alongside advertising rather than instead of it.

The code also stipulated that press agents should not offer to place advertising with a newspaper on condition that it agreed to give editorial coverage, as this was ‘degrading alike to the maker of the threats and to the paper’.

Clarke hoped his code would force deceitful press agents to either change their ways or go out of business, and that this would enhance the professional reputations of those who remained. He also called for an industry-wide approach where a new ‘Vigilance Committee’ would monitor adherence to these rules and punish those who broke them, which he thought ‘would rid editorial publicity work of many abuses and leave unimpaired the useful functions’.

But as forward-thinking as Clarke may have been in identifying the need for this kind of code, it did not make any immediate discernible difference. A decade later, Clarke himself was lamenting that ‘there is still no knowing who is, or may be, a press agent, or what he may do … [and] nor is there any limit, except those imposed by his natural decency, to which a press agent may descend to get his publicity or propaganda across’.

And when the journalist Richard West looked back at Clarke’s code in 1963 as part of a book about the public relations industry, he concluded that while it was ‘admirable as far as it goes’, the vast majority of 1960s public relations firms were consistently breaking at least some of Clarke’s rules.

One rule West claimed was being routinely ignored was the one about ‘suborning’ journalists, which he thought included asking journalists to see a copy of their article before publication and so making ‘the journalist reluctant to be critical in his writing’.

West also gave the example of public relations practitioners posing as ordinary members of the public when writing to the letters page of newspapers as evidence of a failure to be transparent. But to be fair, Clarke did this himself in the 1920s, writing to The Times to enthuse about the telephone industry without mentioning that it was one of his clients.

One element of Clarke’s code still being debated today is the issue of payment by results.

As for Clarke, he apparently only ever broke his rule on payment by results once, when a client insisted he would only pay for the newspaper coverage his agency actually secured.

Clarke reluctantly agreed a rate and at the end of the campaign the client was shocked to find that the bill was five times higher than the fee Clarke had originally proposed. Content to have taught the client a lesson, he let him off the difference in exchange for the price of a lunch.

Bert Gunn’s conversion to public relations

CIPR President Stephen Waddington
CIPR President Stephen Waddington

I really enjoyed reading the transcript today of CIPR President Stephen Waddington’s recent excellent speech to the International History of Public Relations Conference about the history of the CIPR.

One thing that stood out was a quote about public relations from Bert Gunn, who was editor of the Evening Standard between 1945 and 1952.

Gunn said:“[They] are an obstacle to the journalistic profession. I hate them. If I had my way I would do away with the lot.”

Stephen used it to illustrate the point that the kind of hostility shown towards public relations in Robert Peston’s recent high high profile speech has been there pretty much since the beginning.

I’d never heard this quote before, but it’s a good one.

And I found it interesting because of what Gunn did after leaving the Standard. That’s right – he entered public relations, as the managing director of Editorial Services Ltd, the PR agency Basil Clarke founded in 1924.

So who knows, maybe one day we will see Robert Peston join our ranks…



Tim Traverse-Healy on public relations

Tim Traverse-Healy: "paramount concern for public good"
Tim Traverse-Healy: “paramount concern for public good”

After 66 years working in public relations, Tim Traverse-Healy has written a document setting out his professional beliefs and views on the industry.

It is fascinating reading, and Stephen Waddington has posted the whole thing on his blog.

I was most taken with Traverse-Healey’s view that while securing media coverage, communicating and persuading are a big part of what we do, they don’t, on their own, add up to public relations.

Traverse-Healy thinks that for something to be considered public relations, it also has to have three extra ingredients:

  • Truth
  • Paramount concern for the public good
  • Genuine dialogue

I agree with him and think these are things that all of us working in public relations today would do well to remember.

Telling the truth is, I think, a given. And genuine dialogue is something that might not happen all the time, but with the advent of social media it is certainly the way things are going.

But concern for the public good?

This was fundamental to the approach of British public relations pioneers like Basil Clarke and Stephen Tallents. They, like Traverse-Healy, saw themselves as part of a movement that is trying to make society better.

I wonder how many of today’s public relations practioners think of themselves in this way.

That’s why it’s important that we champion this focus on public good and celebrate our industry’s proud history. Above, all, we need to keep making the case that we are more than just a gun for hire. As Traverse-Healy does in his document, “the argument we are like lawyers available to either defend or prosecute is untenable”.

H/T Tom Watson

The long history of public relations and CPD

The idea that continuing professional development (CPD) is important for public relations is neither new nor controversial.

Stephen Waddington, the president-elect of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR), campaigned on a platform of putting CPD at the core of the public relations industry.

Its importance was also highlighted by a number of the candidates (including me) in this year’s CIPR Council election and it is something the CIPR already puts a strong emphasis on.

But until last week, when I was lucky enough to get a chance to look through some CIPR archive materials, I had no idea how long those at the top of our industry have been talking about it.

I was looking for information on Roger Forman, the second president of the IPR (as it was then) in 1949/50, because while researching my biography of Basil Clarke I had read that Forman had been a protégé of his.

While looking through the materials, I came across something by Forman that, for me, perfectly sums up why so many of us are committed to CPD today.

In a message to other members of the IPR, Forman wrote:

It is only by the give and take of ideas that progress towards real efficiency can be made. I am sure that willingness to learn is the mark of any good PRO, as self-satisfaction is the mark of a bad one.

Well said!