Does the PR industry have a sufficient set of guidelines on the use of Social Media? That’s the argument which has been triggered by Edelman’s Simon Collister and Colin Farrington, DG of the CIPR. Last week Simon called on the CIPR to provide clear guidance on the ethical use of Social Media in a letter to PR Week, which elicited a response from Colin pointing out that the CIPR published its Social Media Guidelines in January 2007 and that Simon had in fact been involved in their development.
Simon has responded on his blog, remembering the guidelines do exist but pointing out that his recommendations were apparently largely ignored. Having read Simon’s detailed submission I’m a little confused. One of the main thrusts of his argument is that social media practice is little different from traditional media relations, and that the guidelines make too much of a distinction. While I would agree that there are many shared principles, I don’t see how that fits with his original plea for the CIPR to produce a clear (and presuambly discrete) set of guidelines on the use of Social Media.
There is also criticism that the Guidelines lack detail. Putting to one side that it would be an impossible task, I don’t think it’s the role of the CIPR to develop a bible on how to use Social Media with tactic-by-tactic step-by-step instructions. That ongoing and constantly evolving process is one which individual agencies and consultants need to tackle in their own way.
I think that there are two key points which need to be considered. Firstly the guidelines should be just that – guidelines which communicate the core principles which should govern the implementation of Social Media PR. Secondly, the guidelines need to be designed to be used by the entire PR industry not the relatively tiny clique of PR practitioners who have been living and breathing Social Media for years.
I regularly help to organise and attend CIPR events and I’m no longer surprised to meet PR directors for some of the UK’s largest brands who are still in the dark about the ‘rules’ of engaging with Social Media. I remember there was a rather parochial debate back in 2006 about whether a separate set of guidelines was in fact necessary for Social Media. In my experience for 90% of ordinary practitioners in 2008 it is still seen as new and discrete and they want specific guidance.
Keeping these points in mind I think the CIPR’s Social Media Guidelines are a good starting point. They don’t preach to the converted and they emphasise the importance of transparency and integrity and the unacceptability of unethical tactics such as astro-turfing and spamming.
One year on since their first publication there have been a number of significant developments which need to be considered for inclusion in the next update of the Guidelines, not least SEO. I agree completely with Simon that they really need to be formally reviewed on a six monthly basis in order to remain relevant. You can call me a radical but perhaps that development and consultation process could even be conducted via a dedicated blog where everyone with a genuine interest can easily contribute, debate and shape the outcome?
I would be the first to admit that the CIPR has been historically slow to embrace social media and there have been some serious missteps along the way, but we are by no means starting from scratch. Going back to Simon’s original point we do need a set of Social Media Guidelines which remain robust and relevant and it would benefit the PR industry for as many practitioners as possible to be involved in their ongoing development.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Hi Daljit. Thanks for adding to the debate. Just to be clear - my letter suggested that leadership’ on ethical use of social media should be encouraged. I wasn’t calling for the CIPR to produce guidelines.
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I am saddened by the PR professional bodies engagement with ubiquitous interactive relationships now driving so much of our social and economic life.
The thinking for so many CIPR initiatives is based on grubbing around with communications tools (take one look at the CIPR training programme and what it expects universities to teach PR undergraduates to garner the heights to which it aspires).
The absence of research, strategy and training promoted by the ‘leaders’ of the PR institutions at a time when it is plain for all to see that all their members works are mediated by Internet Protocols is, at best, negligent.
Simon’s frustrations are indicative but nothing compared to the blue funk of the client base when offered tools instead of consultative practice.
The bid price for Yahoo! should be setting alarm bells ringing among all communication institutions even if the price of MySpace and YouTube did not.
Google paid for relationships when it bought YouTube (the software and other tangibles were as nothing). We now know the value of ‘relationships’ and for a bit of the video sharing market it was $1.6bn. For any institution with ‘relations’ in the title, this was a pricey hint about the significance of social media.
Online communication is big league stuff and needs big league commitment by the likes of CIPR.
Starting points are fine but that was a year ago and since then ….. nothing except a broken link to social media guidelines consultation on the CIPR web site.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:59 am
In response to Simon’s comment, “leadership” from industry organisations on the ethical behaviour of their members usually manifests itself as a series of written rules or codes of conduct. Putting the terminology to one side, that seems to be what the CIPR have produced with their Social Media Guidelines. The issue is whether those guidelines remain fit for purpose.
IMO, the onus should be on individual agencies to publically sign up to these guidelines and take responsibility for their promotion and enforcement!