So the PRCA has announced that it is going to offer an individual membership category.
Various other mags have done a great job of copying and pasting the PRCA press release so I won’t attempt to compete on that score, but if you haven’t read the full story here it is. I do find it tough to get passionate about trade organisation membership. Nothing against either the PRCA or the CIPR, they are both organisations run by very nice people, but I do wonder whether in the midst of this war between the two organisations, anyone has stopped to consider: What is the purpose of a trade organisation in PR today?
I meet a lot of PR people in my job and I have to say it’s rare (well actually never) that any PRO has sat me down and talked about their need and passion for a PR trade association.
So I say good luck to the CIPR and the PRCA, you seem to be on a collision course, and that means, probably, that there will be a winner and loser. But I would just take a bit of time to consider what the role of a PR trade association needs to be, especially in these austere times in which we live. I would suggest offering value for money and being a flag bearer for industry standards should be set high on your agendas.
But if all you appear to do is charge people a membership fee and then offer them expensive conference tickets and training, then I’d argue the PR profession might turn its back on both of you …
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 4th, 2011 at 1:44 pm and is filed under pr, public relations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I certainly wouldn’t describe us at being ‘at war’ with the CIPR. Far from it. We remain ready and eager to work with it in support of our industry, as we have done with UKPAC for example.
I’ve read certain people’s comments that we’re ‘treading on the CIPR’s toes’, and I’m afraid they obviously don’t know our two organisations’ histories.
For the first three decades of its existence after it (cordially) broke away from the (C)IPR, the PRCA welcomed individuals as members.
Just as the PRCA always offered training.
Just as it always offered qualifications.
Just as it always insisted on a Code of Conduct.
Just as it always had international members.
Those facts need to be borne in mind in this debate.
Now sure, over the years the PRCA stopped doing some of those things. About ten years ago, for example, we stopped having individual members. But those repeated reductions in our offering were wrong -and my Board has been determined to put them right.
Two further comments. Our Census shows over 60,000 people work in PR. The CIPR represents about a six of that number. We represent a further sixth. So there are 40,000 people who belong to neither organisation. i.e. the industry is big enough for the two of us.
The second comment is this. You’re absolutely right to highlight value for money and being a flag waver for the industry as the two key tests facing membership bodies. Well, I’m utterly convinced we meet both of those tests.
Value for money -we offer a fantastic range of benefits to members at every level. From our referral service that matches our members with around a million pounds of new business every month; to the training courses where we guarantee to beat all of our competitors both on price and on quality; to the fact that we run over a hundred events a year that are absolutely free to members; to the fact that we have deliberately steered clear of the mega-expensive conference model. Tickets to our all-day national conference start with a 1……
And as for leading the industry? Well three letters spring to mind: N.L.A.. Who is it who has been standing with Meltwater in the Copyright Tribunal? The High Court? The Court of Appeal? That would be the PRCA. That’s industry leadership for you.
So -I do indeed want people to focus on those two tests, because I’m happy for us to be judged on them!
Well said Francis. I’m an increasingly disillusioned, long-term CIPR member keen to see how membership of the PRCA might help my professional life. So I’ll be watching closely what happens.
Thank you, Ben, for making these important points about the changing role of trade associations and for questioning whether they offer value for money.
As a company we are yet to be convinced that we will get a worthwhile return on investment from joining a trade association. We are a small firm and we don’t have cash to splash, so laying out on this kind of thing is not taken lightly.
So I called the MDs of four small companies who are currently members of the PRCA and CIPR and asked them for their opinions on whether my firm should invest in a membership. One company was passionately in favour, describing the decision as a ‘no-brainer’, the other three advised me not to bother and that they are expecting to drop their membership because they have not had a worthwhile ROI.
I also spoke to three established small-ish firms who are not members and they were scornful of the whole idea, suggesting that the trade bodies are geared towards large firms and are basically a bit out of date in the way they go about things.
I do think they look a bit bloated – why the flash offices? – and feel the high fees are uninviting.
I’ve shelved the decision for now, but will look again next year, perhaps doing a bit more research among clients to see if it is an important factor to them.
[...] them of copying the CIPR’s model. PRCA Director General, Francis Ingham, posted a thorough response to the news reported on PR [...]