Wanting to give them a useful guide, I spoke with five members of the Commission on Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation: David Geddes, David Michaelson, Katie Paine, Mark Weiner and Lou Williams.

Research providers will tell you they hate RFPs. More precisely, they had bad RFPs - which is most of what they see. But when communications professionals think clearly about the research they need and capture that in the RFP, things go better for everyone. So how do you write a better research RFP?

First, set some goals. Ask yourself where you are going with this and why. A clear business goal should drive a clear communications goal. That, in turn, should drive the research goal. A clear line of sight from research to communications to business result is the surest bet that you're not wasting money at any stage, and your results will be measurable.

Second, identify the essential missing knowledge. There's little point in doing research that won't be applicable to communications, marketing and business decisions. Knowing what you need to know can also point you to research that is already available at little or no cost. This is called secondary research - because you are putting existing research to a secondary use. With that knowledge in hand, you'll have a better idea where to spend your money on original or primary research.

Third, specify what research techniques you have in mind - and where you want advice. How you want the research reported - possibly including an expert presentation to your senior management team - should be spelled out. However clear you think your specs are, the measurement commission members suggested being open to creative new directions.

Fourth, specify the critical capabilities and specializations you need. You need to probe this with every research provider who answers your RFP. Get résumés of key people and subcontractors who will work on your project. In turn, you should make clear how your final choice of research provider will be made, even including a score sheet if there is one.

Fifth, get real about timing. Deadlines should be realistic without dragging things out so long that the research results have little decision-making value.

Sixth, give a clear budget. There's no point in getting proposals for research ideas you can't possibly afford - or are way below the value you actually need. Also be clear about the payment schedule and what you will pay up front.

Finally, take the long view. Continuity matters. If you pick a research provider that cannot change with tomorrow's needs, you won't get as much value as you might from a partner who can continue to meet your needs.

Frank Ovaitt
Executive Vice President, Makovsky + Company
CEO Emeritus, Institute for Public Relations

On the heels of the Tiger Woods scandal last April and only days before the BP rig explosion and oil spill, the Economist ran a story calling attention to the fact that brand-threatening scandals are becoming a regular feature of the corporate landscape.

This, the Economist said, is because of "a toxic (sic) mixture of globalization, which scatters corporate activities hither and yon, and the internet, which allows bad news to spread like wildfire." It cited estimates that executives have an 82% chance of facing a corporate disaster within any five-year period, up from 20% two decades ago.

Taking a page from Crisis Management 101, the Economist suggested that the key to a successful brand re-launch lies in making a cool-headed assessment of how much a crisis damages a company.

"Does it involve life and limb, rather than less consequential matters? Has it spread beyond particular products or particular divisions to afflict the entire corporate brand? If the answer to both questions is yes," the Economist concludes, "then companies are well advised to go into collective overdrive; if it is no, then they can experiment with more nuanced responses, such as lopping off a tainted product or sacrificing a rogue division."

My experience managing public relations during crises - especially at Dow Corning during the height of the silicone breast implant crisis from 1988-1992 - suggests a different reality. The lesson I learned then is that organizations in trouble would do well to practice transparency and pursue dialogue. Nuanced calculations about when and how to "go public" when in crisis are almost always wrong. Just ask BP.

The Economist's larger point was that crises - when managed well - can give brands a long-term boost. The newspaper cited Coca-Cola, which emerged stronger from its disastrous recipe change in 1985. In response to widespread outrage from customers, it reverted to the original formulation within three months. The Economist also cited Johnson & Johnson's handling of the 1982 Tylenol crisis (when an unidentified attacker poisoned some bottles of the painkiller), calling it "the gold standard of crisis management because the company simply recalled all Tylenol without hesitation or demur."

However, as with so many topics today, it seems there's a conspiracy theory surrounding the Tylenol recall. Our friend, the PR trade reporter and columnist, Jack O'Dwyer insists that the Institute should investigate and expose J&J's handling of the Tylenol crisis 28 years ago as something less than "gold standard."

"I have looked at the Institute's website and see the words "science" and "scientific rigor" there and I don't think they should be, Jack told me. ""Real scientists confronted with even a particle of new evidence or new interpretations on something in their fields, would descend like locusts on whatever had turned up."

If you care to read more about conspiracy theory, you can Google the topic or read Jack's blog.

Regarding the Institute's tagline, the science beneath the art of public relations,™ it describes perfectly our foundation's core mission over the past 50+ years. "Science" in this context means we seek to combine the rigor of academic thinking with the practical application of conducting research to demonstrate the value of public relations and improve the day-to-day practice.

Since the 1990s, research to measure the value of public relations has become more important, in part, because CEOs face an 8 in 10 chance of serious crisis during their tenures, and because research is driven hard by public relations academics and some professionals who have background in anthropology, communication, psychology and sociology.

These colleagues and this Institute have argued hard for the mediating impact of public relations and demanded that public relations research and measurement - the science beneath the art - begin to focus on non-financial variables on bottom-line results.

The primary limitation continues to be the focus on an intermediary in the process - the media - rather than on the target audiences for these public relations activities.

I like Jack O'Dwyer, but something inside me keeps saying, "Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel."

Then again, that is so "old school."

For current thinking on the science beneath the art of public relations, I recommend you visit the research section of this website. Or, read The Practitioner's Guide to Public Relations Research, Measurement and Evaluation, a practical new book by researchers Don Stacks and David Michaelson.

The opportunity for public relations has never been greater!

Robert W. Grupp
President and CEO
Institute for Public Relations

I say "many thanks" to the 120 people who completed the survey.

The feedback provides a holistic view of our current website and its potential future state, from the user perspective. This feedback will inform a strategic plan for updating our website, which we intend to launch in Q4.

Highlights from the survey appear below. Please let us know of additional comments and suggestions.

Thanks for your continuing support!

Robert W. Grupp
President and CEO
Institute for Public Relations

Please download the PDF to view the Survey Results.

A new declaration of standards and practices to guide measurement and evaluation of public relations was discussed in Barcelona this week and adopted by delegates attending at the 2nd European Summit on Measurement, organized by AMEC and the Institute for Public Relations.

	From right, David Rockland, Pauline Draper-Watts, chair of the IPR Measurement Commission; Richard Houghton, ICCO President, John Paluszek, GA Chair.

The language may not yet be perfect - and on the surface, some of the principles may seem obvious - but this is a credible attempt by some 200 people from more than a dozen countries to address the need for clear standards and common approaches to measuring and evaluating public relations results.

"What we're doing here is setting a baseline to build on," said David Rockland, Partner/CEO of Ketchum Pleon Change and Global Research, in moderating discussion. "This is the basic philosophy behind a set of standard practices." The standards will be refined based on feedback received in Spain and additional input gathered here [please comment below] and by AMEC over the coming weeks.

For additional information and perspective, Institute for Public Relations research papers are linked wherever appropriate.

Here's a summary of the principles, also posted at AMEC.

1. The Importance of Goal Setting and Measurement

Fundamentally important, goals should be as quantitative as possible and address who, what, when and how much impact is expected from a public relations campaign. Traditional and social media should be measured as well as changes in stakeholder awareness, comprehension, attitude and behavior. Paul Holmes was present and rightfully took exception with the measurement term "target audiences." Instead, we need to think in terms of communities of "stakeholders" as the power of communications shifts from companies and institutions to communities of individuals.

For more on goal setting, see the Institute's recent paper on "Guidelines for Setting Measureable Public Relations Objectives."

2. Media Measurement Requires Quantity and Quality

This principle acknowledges that overall clip counts and impressions are usually meaningless. Instead media measurement should account for impressions among stakeholder audiences and quality (eg. tone, credibility of the source and media outlet), message delivery, inclusion of 3rd party spokespersons, prominence and visual dimension. Importantly, this principle also suggests that quality can be defined as negative, positive or neutral.

3. AVEs are not the Value of Public Relations

There was near-total agreement on this principle in Barcelona (92%) but the group was split on what other validated metrics to use in place of AVEs. (Weighted Media Cost was one suggestion.). The legitimate intent here is not to debate the validity of AVEs (which simply measure the cost of media space) but to move beyond this measure once and for all. Also, this principle acknowledges that multipliers are "silly" and should never be applied unless proven to exist in a specific case.

4. Social Media Can and Should be Measured

• Organizations need clearly defined goals and outcomes for social media
• Evaluating quality and quantity is critical just as with traditional media
• Media content analysis should be supplemented by web and search analytics, sales and CRM data, survey data and other methods.
• Given the scale and volume of social media, technology-assisted analysis may be necessary.
• Measurement must focus on conversations and communities, not "coverage"
• Understanding reach and influence is important, but existing sources are not acceptable, transparent or consistent enough to be reliable. Experimentation and testing are key to success.

A recent paper published by the Institute's Commission on Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation (download here) outlined practical steps for public relations practitioners who want to adopt web analytics as part of their media measurement strategy.

5. Measuring Outcomes is Preferred to Measuring Media Results

• This principle suggests that: Outcomes include shifts in awareness, comprehension, attitude and behavior related to purchase, donations, brand equity, corporate reputation, employee engagement, public policy investment decisions and other shifts in audiences regarding a company, NGO, government or entity as well as the audience's own beliefs and behaviors.
• The proposal that "benchmark and tracking survey research are the preferred practices for quantitative measurement" almost certainly will be expanded to include and acknowledge the value of qualitative research methodology. (Some researchers suggest that in addition to being descriptive, PR research is dominated by a short-term quantitative tradition. Some contend "that no everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted, counts.")
• Standard best practices in survey research -- including sample design, question wording and order and statistical analysis - should be applied in total transparency.

6. Business (read: Organizational) Results Can and should be Measured Where Possible

• Models that determine the effects of the quantity and quality of PR outputs on sales or other business metrics, while accounting for other variables that drive sales, are a preferred choice for measuring consumer or brand marketing. Related points are:
• Clients are creating demand for market mix models to evaluate the impact of consumer marketing
• The PR industry needs to understand the value and implications of market mix models for accurate evaluation of consumer marketing PR in contrast to other measurement approaches
• The PR industry needs to develop measures that can provide reliable input into market mix models
• Survey research can also be used to isolate the change in purchasing preference or attitude shift resulting from exposure to PR initiatives.

An important point for consideration was made by Ketchum's John Paluszek, also chair of the Global Alliance: "The results of other organizations that we serve are critically important. Our field is growing in its service to NGOs, charitable organizations, governments, the military; organizations that fall outside the business perimeter. We should be talking about 'organizational results' instead of only 'business results.'"

7. Transparency and Relicability are Paramount to Sound Measurement

• PR measurement should be done in a manner that is transparent and replicable.

What's next?

With additional comment from the global PR measurement community, the Barcelona Principles will be further refined and distributed in mid-July for further discussion. Also, we look forward to exploring additional principles at the Institute for Public Relations 8th North American Summit on Measurement October 6-8 in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

So, what do you think?

Robert W. Grupp
President and CEO
Institute for Public Relations

There's much talk these days about the "say-do gap" in communications - the best communications narrows that gap between what you say and what you do. Certainly anyone in a position of authority (parent, teacher, officer) may be able to get away with a wider gap, but what about when your actions impact global public opinion or company-client relations?

This is where understanding strategic communications pays off. At the National Summit on Strategic Communications in Washington, DC, speakers from government, industry and the military shared insights from a lifetime of learning, including those teachable moment missteps and stories of success. Here are some highlights from this inaugural gathering. I can't wait until next year!

Paging Willis Conover: In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration adopted a domestic-style political campaign strategy to explain the global war on terror. What may have worked for an American audience-the use of the word "crusade" to explain the president's resolve to a nation just attacked by terrorists-conjured up negative historical associations overseas. Interviews with foreign media were arranged, but more interviews resulted in falling goodwill in the world. Why? Because the selling approach with words did not match actions (Abu Ghraib). What we know today is that asymmetrical warfare needs asymmetrical communications. Wikileaks needs monitoring and response as much as any Larry King Live show. The era of the cookie cutter approach is over. If our failures have taught us anything, it's that we have to look at every operation differently -this is jazz and not architecture.

Remember your ABC's and D's: William Nixon, Chairman and CEO of Policy Impact Communications, said that everything comes down to how you position your message to resonate better than the competition. Strategic communications is "the persuasive application of words." The following factors are prominent: (A) Audience: Understand your audience and how you articulate your word to that audience - write/use language from the perspective of your audience - put your mind in the position of your audience. (B) Balance: There is a delicate balance among facts, analytics, advocacy, and emotion. In seeking balance, remember that veracity reigns supreme. Never, ever manipulate facts. It will jeopardize your integrity. (C) Consistency: This refers to two essential elements, frequency and recency. Frequency is about making sure your message is repeated often. Recency has to do with timing, position, location, and relevance. Think McDonald's. They advertise only when they know people are thinking about food. Is your message the one they remember last before heading into that ballot booth? If so, then you have the advantage. (D) Dramatic Effect: We are storytellers. But we must tell a good story and keep it short. Reagan knew it best: "It's show business." Reagan also used humor, but at its greatest effect: self-deprecating.

Corporate Responsibility is Strategic Communications: Russ Yarrow, General Manager, Corporate Affairs for Chevron, reminds us that the competitive landscape has changed dramatically. The old drivers are capital, technology, and hardware. New drivers include expertise, the latest communications technology, and socioeconomic investment. Yarrow shared 6 Principles of Corporate Responsibility: (1) Business investments can be strategically leveraged to create enduring social and economic value. (2) Businesses cannot be successful outside of a healthy, functioning society. Corporations need to continually look for ways to positively influence destabilizing factors; i.e., fighting AIDS in Africa. (3) Social investment is a strategic business function. (4) CR should be rooted in values, and integrated in to business strategies and disciplines. Values are lived every day and integrated into processes. (5) CR is best advanced through engagement, dialogue and partnerships; and (6) CR is an act of continuous improvement - it never stands still - responding, adapting, learning, and innovating.

Looking Ahead: Price Floyd of the Department of Defense: Too often success in strategic communications relates to the personalities in charge at the time. We need to standardize procedures so that it becomes policy-based and not personality-based. At the international level, the United States has no global branding of its humanitarian relief efforts around the world. Bill Nixon: The Internet is the modern Tower of Babel where everyone's opinion has equal weight. How do we address that? Today 17% of Marines are on Twitter. That figure is likely to grow. While everyone may have a right to his own opinion, he does not have a right to the facts (attributed to Reagan). We need to separate the wheat from the chafe in communications. Not every opinion matters, much less needs a response, just those that influence for good and bad.

The Public Diplomacy Architect: Lessons Learned: Karen Hughes, former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, treated us to her insights from working as a broadcast journalist, running two successful presidential campaigns, and coordinating coalition information centers in the days after 9/11. The Dallas Morning News once referred to Hughes as the most important woman ever to serve in the White House. I can see why. Few have such a resume. She's now Global Vice Chair for Burson-Marsteller. Hughes was given the thankless task of taking over America's chief persuasion role in 2005, a time when the Bush Administration was dealing with rising anti-Americanism. I recall this time well. I taught a special topics course that fall on "Hating America at Home and Abroad," the only such course ever taught at the USC Annenberg School for Communication in Los Angeles. The public diplomacy efforts by Karen Hughes were of much interest to me and I was not always so approving. I thought her proximity to President George W. Bush would hurt her efforts. The press coverage of Hughes was particularly jarring. After listening to her presentation, I realize how much Karen Hughes actually did to put in place strategic communication practices that continue today at the Department of State. To name just a few, she established Rapid Response Units to cover global media reaction in real time. She created a two-page Dip-Note for the frontlines, "the field" in State-speak, to make sure that personnel were "on message" with policy. Those who didn't like anyone connected to George W. Bush dismissed much of what Hughes did throughout her two-year tenure at State. But this is where we fail in strategic communications. We must learn to separate personal feelings and political ideology from what works. The fact is, everyone fails at something at sometime and though Hughes was not perfect for the job (Who ever is?), many campaigns that she put in place have the 'stickiness' that endure today. For that she should be credited.

Hughes shared her 5 C's for best practices in strategic communications:

(1) Clarity - Say what you mean. To be effective your message must be clear. Make sure you have the sound bite that is tomorrow's headline.
(2) Conviction: Mean what you say. There is a fine line between being emphatic and being overstated. Learn the difference.
(3) Compassion: Make your message relevant to people's lives. Tell the story in the context of the audience you are communicating to. Focus on kitchen table issues.
(4) Credibility: People have to believe you/trust you. If they don't, it doesn't matter what you say or do.
(5) Consistency: Say it over and over again. About the time you are sick of saying something is about the time it begins to sink in. You have to find new and interesting ways to say the same thing. Messages based on core values are good because you speak about what you believe in. Speak with one voice throughout the organization. You also have to DO what you SAY for consistency.

Like Russ Yarrow, Hughes spoke about the need for more corporate responsibility. She referred to it as "business diplomacy" to achieve your company's goals. Employees are your best ambassadors, but you have to give them the tools and latitude to allow them to speak out in conjunction with the company story. At State, Hughes expanded the Diplomacy of Deeds approach, realizing that so much good works by the U.S. went unnoticed.
Example: George W. Bush's AIDS program for Africa was very well received, even with so much negative global public opinion about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hughes said that in everything you do, you must think about building partnerships with diverse stakeholders. You need to offer them a vision of hope, while also isolating and marginalizing those who work against you. Always work toward identifying, fostering and nurturing common interests and values. She told the story about her best success with women in the Middle East. It was an effort to build awareness about breast cancer. It did not have the heaviness of a political message, but rather a win/win for all.

Finally, don't forget to inspire. People are hungry for inspiration and hope. They want to feel good about their organization and feel a part of something truly excellent.

Dr. Nancy Snow
Associate Professor of Communications
California State University - Fullerton
nancy@nancysnow.com

Dr. Snow was among participants at The National Summit on Strategic Communications May 20-21 in Washington DC. The event was co-organized by the Institute for Public Relations and the Arthur W. Page Society.

BP's public relations blunders in mismanaging the massive Deepwater Horizon oil blowout will be a lesson for generations of professional communicators. The firm's public response in the wake of the disaster will serve as the antithesis to the positive story of Johnson & Johnson and its handling of the Tylenol case. PR aside, its attack on the ocean with toxic dispersants is downright deadly; maybe even to BP.

The J&J quick, open, honest response to the tragic deaths caused in 1982 by cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules has been recognized for decades as the right way to handle a tragic accident. BP's slow, misleading and destructive response will serve as how to do it wrong. Really wrong.

BP has misled the public by interfering with efforts to measure the spill rate and it is doing even greater damage by using toxic chemicals to disperse the oil. Both mistakes will haunt the firm for decades: Not telling the truth, and covering up once you know the truth are the classic mistakes made countless times by those in trouble. Richard Nixon comes to mind, but so do Enron and Parmalat. BP has gone beyond the pathetic approaches by those villains by going one better: using chemical dispersants to keep the oil unseen at the cost of making the oil pollute the water with no recovery possible.

Keeping the oil within a smaller area would make it easier to pick up. But BP chose to spread it out using toxic chemicals, that are themselves harmful pollutants. It appears that in trying to hide the mess by spreading it and sinking it, BP went beyond the misinformation and cover-up formulas of Nixon, Enron and Parmalat, to add a magician-like misdirection to its approach.

This is not a condemnation of public relations, a profession that strives to adhere to the principals of one of its founders, Arthur W. Page. The Page Principles start with "Tell the truth." However, BP management didn't listen. I can't imagine the head of BP's communications, BP's PR agency or anyone with a shred of expertise would have suggested an attempt to hide a multi-million gallon oil gusher 40 miles off the US coast.

Did BP really think that by killing more ocean life under the surface they would avoid the public outcry?

It's 2010 and we can all see below the surface of a tragedy, both figuratively and literally. Having gone through an economic downturn caused by greed, we tend to look deeper and ask why. Thanks to technology, we also have live streaming video of the oil gushing out of the well a mile below the surface. To its credit, BP is supplying the live video feed. To its discredit, as reported in The Huffington Post and confirmed by many others on site, BP has tried to keep scientists and other observers away from the gushing blowout. But, most importantly, in 2010 we have the social media: the bloggers, the citizen journalists, Facebook, Twitter and more to keep the pressure on and not let a story go away just because it's mostly hidden from the naked eye.

Perhaps BP thought time, other news and short attention spans would distract the world while it made a horrific accident worse with deliberately trying to put the oil out of sight and out of mind. As if its lack of preparation to handle such a deep spill wasn't enough, the chemicals being dumped into the water are making it harder to clean. BP's actions are turning fisheries into dead zones, disrupting an entire ecosystem and destroying the livelihoods of men and women who harvest the oceans. Of course, the killing of magnificent animals, harm to habitat and loss of biodiversity will also be BP's legacy for years.

Leading scientists are speaking out everywhere against the use of the toxic dispersants and the world is listening. Speaking to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment May 21, 2010, Dr. Carl Safina, president of Blue Ocean Institute and MacArthur Fellow, explained how the use of dispersants is not only toxic, but it also makes it impossible to recover the oil.

In quickly adopting the dispersant approach, BP demonstrated its lack of planning and preparation. It's the same reason they had to build a container box to go over the well after it blew up, killing 11 crew members. Speaking at the same Congressional hearing, another leading scientist, Sylvia Earle, explorer-in-residence at the National Geographic Society, said, "It doesn't take great imagination to realize why we should fear drilling in the Arctic . . . We should fear lack of preparedness to drill anywhere."

Being prepared for most of us means having a smoke detector in the house. A fire extinguisher is Plan B, and many people have a plan C escape plan. However, after opening the spigot on a wellhead one mile below the surface of the ocean, BP had no plan B for when its blowout preventer didn't work. If there was a Plan C, it appears to be trying to hide the unprecedented scope of the disaster.

There is certainly a great deal of blame to go around. Transocean notwithstanding, there are many contractors and subcontractors facing litigation, fines and more. Reports of regulatory lapse and the Obama Administration's role are all coming into question. But it is BP at the front and center and it will be BP that suffers the stigma in the aftermath.

As for lessons learned from the PR front, BP's executives should get some better advice if they don't want the tragedy to be fatal. First, stop spreading the toxic chemicals and stop misleading the public. Second, come clean about everything, starting with the actual amount of oil gushing into the sea. The reputation has already been permanently and painfully wrecked. Any further obfuscation and ill-conceived attempts to spread the oil and the blame, will take the firm down.

After decades working in public relations, I'm disappointed and surprised that BP tried the old mistakes of lying and covering up. As the executive director of a not-for-profit working to protect our oceans, I'm horrified that an attempt to hide the oil is exacerbating the attack on the environment.

I've been reminded over past days how truth and accuracy in information are under assault - and of the obligation that each of us has to fight back.

Harris Diamond, CEO of Weber Shandwick, characterized the situation in a commencement speech: "The new paradigm holds that everything is opinion, everything is relative, and everything is spin. Information is in the eye of the communicator. The assumption today seems to be that since no information is fully accurate; all information is up for grabs."

Diamond made the remarks to the spring 2010 graduating class at the USC Annenberg School for Communications and Journalism. He was the first public relations professional to give the commencement speech at the journalism school, and Diamond's remarks are a great read. (They appear below.)

His challenge to the graduates (and to all of us - whether we practice public relations or journalism) is to fulfill an obligation to tell the truth and to the idea that objective facts set boundaries of communications.

Bill Nixon, a long-time public policy insider in Washington DC, spoke eloquently on this subject at the Institute's National Summit on Strategic Communications. He said that today, everything is about the message and medium where communications - the words - take on a life of their own.

In this environment - in our online world - "veracity has to reign supreme." How you talk about the truth is not a shade of gray. (See: Richard Blumenthal).

The constant challenge is for communications to be creative in order for your message to stick, which tends to make communication more about controversy, not information. Communication in this environment, Nixon says, is "strategic brinksmanship."

"This is a dangerous trend," Diamond said. "(Factual) information is the foundation on which the commons of democratic society is built.

"You have the power to reject this assault, to fight back, to take a stand."

Indeed!

Robert W. Grupp
President and CEO
Institute for Public Relations

USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
Commencement Address to the Class of 2010

By Harris Diamond, CEO, Weber Shandwick

Thank you so much for that introduction. There's really only one word that matters on a day like this, and that word is "congratulations." So congratulations—congratulations to the graduates, to the parents and family and friends who helped you to this day, and congratulations to all of you for already having chosen wisely in the most important decision of your careers so far: attending the Annenberg School.

Having said one word is all that matters, I should sit down. But I'm going to defend some old fashioned values in this speech, and there's no value more old-fashioned than the one that says commencement speakers should drone on far longer than anyone wants to listen, with advice nobody needs to hear, with an air of self-importance nobody should be forced to endure. Today I take my place in that long and unbroken tradition. So indulge me for a few more minutes. They're not going to give you the diplomas until you sit through this speech anyway.

When I was a teenager, I sold peanuts at Yankee Stadium. It was every Brooklyn kid's dream job, mostly because you could hang out in the stands watching the game. That's what I was doing one day during the third inning when an old man—I think he was maybe 20—said, "Hey, kid, if you're here to watch the game, find a quarter, buy a ticket and grab a bleacher". If you came here to make money, make money."

That man taught me the decisive importance of always asking: What did I come here to do? It's a question I want to put to each of you as you embark on your careers in communication today. What are you here to do?

It's not an idle question—because the field of communication faces challenges today that make the answer far from clear. The easy answer, of course, is that you're here because you want to spend your careers communicating. But communicating what? Again, the easy answer: communicating information.

And that's where we arrive at the difficulty I want to discuss with you today, because it's one on which the viability of our field—whether you're in journalism or public relations, whether the viability is economic or ethical—depends.

The difficulty begins with this irony: We live in an information age. Yet the idea of information itself is under assault. By information, I mean something pretty simple. Or so you'd think. I mean facts. I mean reality. I mean a common basis of objective truths—whether it pertains to politics or products—on which we can make decisions, have arguments, form opinions. It's now a truism to say information is more plentiful than ever. I need hardly say that's right. But in the two professions for which this institution has trained you—public relations and journalism—there is not merely a shrinking commitment to conveying information as I have described it but also a mounting attack on the concept of information itself.

The new paradigm holds that everything is opinion, everything is relative, everything is spin. Information is in the eye of the communicator. Communication is about controversy, not information.

It's been said that if a politician today declared the earth to be flat, the headline the next morning would read, "Controversy over shape of earth." It's supposed to elicit a laugh, and I suppose it does. But it conceals a deep and disturbing truth about both journalism and PR. On both sides, we are increasingly willing to say anything—and to believe our ethical duties have been discharged as long as someone contradicts it on the other side.

In this new paradigm, stating the simple truth-- that the earth is flat, and that anyone who says otherwise is either deranged or lying -- makes you arrogant, presumptuous, even unethical. I'm reminded of Abraham Lincoln's famous question: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?" The answer: "Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

Apparently Honest Abe didn't get cable. Because these days, saying anything increasingly does make it so.

This is what I mean by the assault on information. The facts—the truths—that used to establish limits for PR and aspirations for journalism are under attack.

It's in evidence in the shouting that passes for cable news, the blending of the once distinct endeavors of reporting and commentary, and—on the public relations side—the myth that it's both possible and ethical to spin any sow's ear into any silk purse.

There was a time when PR people might say anything—but with the confidence, somewhere in the back of our minds, that if we pushed it too far, the media would rein us in. What's happened, though, is that the boundaries on both sides of the communication profession have collapsed. No one is holding anyone in. In a curious sense, journalism and public relations have converged. We are all spin doctors now.

And my message to you today, as your careers begin in whichever of these fields you may choose, is this: Physicians, we need to heal ourselves. What we need today, on both the journalism and the public relations sides, is an ethical renewal, a return to the idea that objective information exists and that it sets the boundaries for what we do.

At this point, you may be wondering whether the reality you're sitting in right now is real. After all, I'm the first guy from the PR side to address this school's commencement. And the flack, of all people, is lecturing you about truth. Not just a flack, but a guy who used to be a political flack. And you haven't even heard the worst of it. I'm also a lawyer.

Maybe it's a sign of the times—I'll leave it to you to decide whether it's a good one—that someone who manages to cram politics, public relations and law into the same resume is standing at this podium pontificating about truth. But if it's a sign, I'm not the only one seeing it. Public trust in journalism, as you know, is not high. (And I'm sure you've noticed the business itself is not in great shape, either.) Large portions of the American public no longer trust the information they receive—increasingly, information in any form.

That is not good for our society, for the business I'm in or the one the journalists among you are about to enter. Because if the information we are getting is unreliable; if the truth doesn't matter; if facts don't exist; if reality itself is a commodity anyone can manufacture; then communications is a service - whether provided by journalists or public relations folks - that nobody needs to buy. And the choice, I think, is pretty simple. The boundaries of communication will be set by facts, or they will be set by convenience—which is to say, by nothing.

The ethic of journalism used to be that the news pages reported the facts as objectively as possible. The idea of opinion writing, of politics and of public relations was to comment on those facts—to present them in a way that advanced a certain point of view, but the facts were the common denominator binding both sides of our respective businesses and, indeed, of our entire society.

Today, though, a commitment to facts is being overtaken by an obsession with spin. The once stark line between news and commentary is blurring. So is the line between commentary and fiction—between making a persuasive case and, well, making things up. In both journalism and PR, this new perspective holds that opinion is everything. Facts aren't merely irrelevant; they're non-existent.

Of course, in a democracy, a little skepticism can be a healthy thing. But what we have today is neither a "little" skepticism nor a healthy skepticism. The assumption today seems to be that since no information is fully accurate, all information is up for grabs. Senator Moynihan once said that you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. These days, not only do people feel entitled to their own facts, there are media proliferating to supply them. It's now possible not just to choose what information you believe but to cherry pick all the information you receive in the first place.

This is a dangerous trend. Information is the foundation on which the commons of democratic society is built. If we cannot meet on that commons, we simply cannot meet. I don't mean we have to agree. I mean we have to be able to disagree in a meaningful way. I mean that civil society—emphasis on the "civil"—rests on the possibility, however unlikely it may be, that we can convince one another of our views. Or that even if we can't, it's because I think my facts are more important than yours; or I think they are more persuasive than yours.

But it is not because I deny that your facts exist. Still less is it because I deny that any facts exist. If we can't talk to each other, all we can do is yell. That, increasingly, is what we are in fact doing. And one can't help but wonder whether the fists are far behind.

You have the power to reject this assault, to fight back, to take a stand.

If your calling is journalism—and at its best, it is exactly that, a calling—you can defend the line between reporting and commentary. Even if you choose the path of opinion writing, or of reporting from a specific perspective, you can insist that facts set the limits of what you do. If your profession will be public relations, or political communication, you can choose to spin facts rather than merely spin—to present a point of view, to do so with zeal, but to do so within boundaries set by objective truths.

If you choose the path of journalism, you can refuse to put the authoritative statement from the Nobel laureate on par with the wild claim of the conspiracy theorist. If you choose public relations, you can tell your client that you'll spin facts into a point of view—but not into fiction. If you choose the path of journalism, you can report that the earth is round—that someone claiming otherwise doesn't amount to a controversy, it amounts to a lie. If your future lies in PR, you can refuse—no matter how alluring the retainer may be—to claim the earth is flat.

Joseph Pulitzer once described a journalist's obligation to his or her reader this way: "Put it before them briefly so they will read it, clearly so they will appreciate it, picturesquely so they will remember it and, above all, accurately so they will be guided by its light."

It's an obligation each of you—whether your path is journalism or public relations—now inherits. It's an obligation to the idea of truth, to the idea of information. It's to the idea of objective facts that set the boundaries of communications, whether we are journalists or advocates.

That idea is under assault. That means our profession is under assault. And it means we need a new generation of professionals willing to fight back. You are it. I know because I know how well the institution from which you graduate today has prepared you for this moment. I know that Annenberg has taught you not merely competence but character. You leave this campus not only with proficiency but with purpose—with a sense of mission on which it is no exaggeration to say the future of society depends.

This moment presents you with a choice—and, therefore—with an opportunity. Take it. That is what you're here to do. The Annenberg School's class of 2010 is ready for the challenge. And that, I can assure you, is the truth.

Congratulations and good luck.

CEOs look to us - look to you - to be, if not the smartest person in the room, certainly able to make some very serious judgments often under crisis circumstances when there is a great deal on the line. We have to approach that responsibility with a great deal of humility and understanding, and research helps.

That's what Don Baer said to Institute for Public Relations Trustees when our Board met last week in its first full session of 2010. Don is Chairman of Penn, Schoen Berland (PSB) and Worldwide Vice Chairman of Burson-Marsteller. He engaged Trustees in their opening session.

The research results he presented illustrate once again just how badly corporate and CEO reputations have been damaged. Like many of you, I am hopeful and remain optimistic about economic recovery and the business of public relations. What we learned from research is that the hole that corporations and their leaders are in, however, is much deeper than many corporate executives are willing or able to admit.

It's no surprise that the general population is intensely distrustful of CEOs and many of the companies they lead. If you're in the banking, insurance or automotive industries, you already know that three out of five Americans describe corporate CEOs as "greedy and money hungry" or "very wealthy, overpaid fat cats."

Three out of four Americans say they trust corporate CEOs less than they did two years ago. When asked to describe their views, 62 percent of Americans say that generally, corporations and their spokespeople are dishonest, and most communications from companies are lies. The data comes from a poll for the Institute Board conducted two weeks ago, and other data compiled by PSB for Institute Trustees.

Even more disturbing is that corporate executives and spokespeople themselves are split 50/50 on the same question. I found it amazing and troubling that only half of "business elites" say they believe that corporations and their spokespeople are honest and telling the truth!

As our board assembled in New York to discuss these findings, and the implications on our profession and the Institute's agenda, The Economist published an insightful article. It suggests what will be required for major brands to redeem an image soiled by scandal and arrogance - just as we watched the re-launching of the most valuable personal brand in the world: Tiger Woods.

The key, according to The Economist, to a successful re-launch lies in making a cool-headed assessment of how much a scandal damages your company. If a crisis involves life and limb (e.g. Toyota) and has spread beyond particular products or particular divisions to afflict the entire corporation (e.g. JetBlue 2007), then companies are well advised to go into collective overdrive to repair the damage.

What will it take for many CEOs and other corporate executives to appreciate and understand the intensity of stakeholder frustration and distrust? Or more importantly, what will it take to turn it around?

The Economist article underlines two of the most fundamental rules of successful management in trying times.

First, the CEO needs to quickly take charge sidelining "corporate cluck-cluckers" (their words, not mine) such as lawyers (who worry that any admission of guilt will lead to lawsuits) or financial officers (who obsess about the bottom line). Many of the most damaging crises have resulted from foot-dragging at the top - as appears to be the case with Toyota today. The second rule is that crisis-racked firms should redouble their focus on their customers.

Similarly, the PSB poll conducted for the Institute Board asked 300 Americans: "What should a company do to gain your trust?" The top three responses were these: 21 percent said "be honest, don't lie and keep your promises;" 10 percent cited transparency and accountability, and 8 percent said "care about people and customers and provide good service."

There are a lot of things we can't be Pollyannish about at this point, says Don Baer. We have to be realistic, serious and intentional. As data clearly show, rebuilding trust and corporate reputation top the list.

There is a convergence of forces that could not have been predicted or planned for: We saw the technological revolution coming a decade ago, but perhaps not the speed of change and certainly not the degree of economic uncertainty.

"Basically what we've witnessed is the floorboards being pulled out from under a large chunk of the population. Then you throw in things like great hope and expectations for a new administration in Washington and a year and a half later, what has happened? This portends fundamental change. I don't think we're going back to the way things were."

"Previously you were able get things done by pulling on a half dozen levers with distinctive functions, and you now can pull on 20 or 30 levers, and you don't know which of those you leave out at your peril."

It's time for many people in public relations to change the way they think about corporate trust and reputation. Find out what the levers are. Generate useful ideas on how to regain trust with stakeholders inside and outside of organizations, and help steer the way out of this untenable situation.

That's the role of corporate public relations.

Robert W. Grupp
President and CEO
Institute for Public Relations

Steve Dishart comes full circle

From little boy who loved the shore, to young journalist, to corporate communications executive, I've now turned back to the shore to explore what I can do to help save our oceans.

It may seem strange to watch yet another NYC business person take a step off the full-time corporate map and join the not-for-profit world, but sometimes we just like to return to our roots and use our experiences and connections in new ways. My new organization, Blue Ocean Institute (blueocean.org) is right for me. At least that's what my new colleagues and the organization's founder, Dr. Carl Safina, believe.

I hope they're right. I'm bringing my education, five years in broadcasting and 25 years in corporate life to this cause to make a difference. In the not-for-profit world it's not about the money; it's about the mission. Blue Ocean's mission to "SAVE THE OCEANS," in short, is a perfect fit not only with my education, experience and passions, but also with my network.

Blue Ocean Institute uniquely works through science, art, and literature to inspire solutions and a deeper connection with nature. We share reliable information that enlightens personal choices, instills hope, and helps restore living abundance in the ocean.

When I was a little boy standing at the water's edge in Ocean City, Maryland, I was not aware that there was a need to "restore living abundance in the ocean." Compared to me the ocean was abundance. Huge. Never ending. And it gave up its goods to us. My dad would surf cast and catch dinner. My four brothers and I would go out in Chesapeake Bay with dad and pull up flounder for mom to cook back in our two-room cottage.

In those days the sea always gave back. Each time I threw a little inflatable plastic tugboat into the water, it came back. I held it by the stack and threw it as far as I could. Each year I could throw it a little farther and it would get caught in the waves and come back.

One year when the family returned to the shore for our week at the beach, my arm got the little boat just past the first breakers. Maybe I was a little stronger or maybe there was a little undertow. Anyway, the boat just kept going. My dad climbed aboard a flimsy rubber float and paddled out. He went out past all the breakers. Out to where he made my mom nervous as he turned into a dot and then disappeared. Then, like a returning hero, the dot reappeared and then my dad, the big Marine, came paddling back with my little boat in his hand. I was glad the ocean gave me back my boat and my dad.

Today, the oceans can no longer give us back all that we wish. They can no longer provide the abundance that feeds us and that we can enjoy from the shore or from a boat.

Approximately one billion people rely on seafood for protein. About 35 million make their livings fishing. All of them are threatened by current trends of overfishing. And the carbon dioxide that is released from burning fossil fuels is not only warming our oceans but also turning them more acidic. Mercury, the main dangerous pollutant in fish, comes from burning coal.

We seem to only take from and destroy the oceans. The warming waters caused by climate change are bleaching the coral reefs. Millions of people, including some very close friends, love to dive around those reefs and enjoy the beauty they offer. The reefs also provide a valuable habitat for many species.

I have only learned a fraction of what the brilliant scientists at Blue Ocean Institute know. I have only scratched the surface in understanding what I can do to help. But I know that my experiences in corporate communications, the network I built around the globe and the skills I was fortunate enough to develop over the past decades, should be used for something bigger than me.

And the ocean is a lot bigger than me.

For my kids and for everyone who deserves to enjoy the oceans and delicious seafood, I hope this job works out. For many who depend on the oceans each day for their survival, I will do my best.

Stephen K. Dishart
Trustee, Institute for Public Relations

Executive Director
Blue Ocean Institute
250 Lawrence Hill Road
Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724
Office: (631) 659-3746
sdishart@blueocean.org

Editor's Note: The Institute for Public Relations and Blue Ocean Institute depend on contributions from generous colleagues like you. Your online contributions to IPR and to Blue Ocean Institute are appreciated!

Social media surveys are a dime a dozen these days and with good reason. Social media are hot in the public relations and public affairs profession. Practitioners at all levels want to know how to use them for publicity, marketing, sales, reputation management, crisis communications, and more. And judging by the PR/PA M&A agency business, firms with social media expertise and experience are the hottest prospects around.

And, of course, use of social media by the media is of great interest. How do journalists use these media for developing news, stories, contacts, leads, facts, opinions, and opportunities to spread the word about what they've written? What do they think of social media sites?

A survey I did on this subject, pro bono, with Cision, provides interesting insights. It was sent to several thousand media, primarily print. We define social media as blogs, social networking sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn, microblogging sites such as Twitter, photo/video sharing sites such as YouTube and Flickr, and review sites or web discussion forums such as eopinions.com. For a copy of the survey results, go to http://tinyurl.com/yhukr5q

As one might expect, owing to all that's been written on the subject, an overwhelming majority of reporters and editors now depend on social media sources when researching their stories. Among the journalists we surveyed, 89% turn to blogs for story research, 65% to social media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn, and 52% to microblogging services such as Twitter. The survey also found that 61% use Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia.

While the results demonstrate the fast growth of social media as a primary source of information for journalists, the survey also makes it clear that reporters and editors are acutely aware of the need to verify information they get from social media. Eighty-four percent said social media sources are "slightly less" or "much less" reliable than traditional media, with 49% saying social media suffer from "lack of fact checking, verification and reporting standards."

"Mainstream media have clearly hit a tipping point in their reliance on social media for their research and reporting," said Heidi Sullivan, Vice President of Research for Cision "However, it's also clear that while social media are supplementing the research done by journalists, they are not replacing editor and reporter reliance on primary sources, fact-checking and other traditional best practices in journalism."

The survey provides some great news for PR/PA practitioners. To wit: Despite most assumptions to the contrary, most journalists turn to public relations and public affairs professionals for assistance in their primary research. Editors and reporters say they depend on PR professionals for "interviews and access to sources and experts" (44%), "answers to questions and targeted information" (23%), and "perspective, information in context, and background information" (17%).

Social media provide a wealth of new information for journalists, but getting the story right is just as important as ever for those who prepare and edit the news. The takeaway for PR/PA professionals: They have a bigger responsibility than ever to ensure that the information they provide journalists is accurate and timely and that they provide access to primary sources that can verify the facts.

Media use of search engines/sites provides a good overview on which sites are the most popular among journalists. Google is the top search engine for online research with all responding journalists using this tool. Wikipedia is second but still used by six out of ten. Here are the stats:

• Google 100%
• Wikipedia 61%
• Firefox 31%
• Yahoo 26%
• MSN/Bing 15%
• Ask 7%
• Blog-only search engines such as Technorati, IceRocket 5%
• Review sites or web discussion forums such as eopinons.com, Ripoffreport.com 4%
• Other 10%

Social media are not the end all and be all for PR/PA purposes, but they have emerged as a powerful communication tool for PR/PA practitioners. Regardless of how they are and can be used, they have become the next step in the development of PR/PA principles and practices.

Knowledge of what they are, how to use them, and how to measure them has become urgent. If PR/PA practitioners don't become the dominant experts in their use, others like ad agencies and digital design firms will step into the breach and shift the dynamics of organizational communications – detrimentally to my way of thinking – toward paid advertising and marketing.

Is the PR/PA profession up to the challenge? Some practitioners and firms clearly are, but I worry that most, at least in the current marketplace, are not. More has to be done to educate the profession about what's at stake and what has to be done, individually and collectively, to take control of the playing field.

Don Bates is an Honorary Trustee of the Institute for Public Relations, a public relations and public affairs educator, and senior public relations and public affairs consultant. He also is an instructor in writing and media relations in the George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management Master's Degree Program in Strategic Communications, which he helped to establish. dbates@gwu.edu