Tuesday, 21 April 2015
Why PR Needs Diversity To Keep It Alive
Since the latest CIPR State of The Profession, there has been much talk of "is PR Dead?" And it's not a new argument, when researching for this blog post I found articles from 2008! As linked in this weeks TILT, Octopus Group thinks it needs a freshening up and I agree. Most think PR needs to embrace new technologies, stop putting so much onus on print media, I think we both need to work together.
From a blogger point of view, print media and traditional PR firms need to stop trying to compete with the internet, because they've already failed. If you're wondering why this shift in posts, PR is something I'm very interested in and study at uni so it's something I definitely have a massive opinion about!
I definitely think PR should be embracing social media and it will suffer if they and their clients don't. But news agencies are still far more respected than bloggers, I'm sorry but its true. Most would believe something on BBC News over a blog post, social media and bloggers are faster and can reveal news faster.
For me the digital vs print media debate isn't the issue here, it's the inequality in the industry. Just in PR in 2014 there were double the male to female MD's, Directors, Partners or Owners in PR despite there being nearly double the amount of women as men in the profession. The pay gap from men to women in middle management jobs stands at £8.8k and goes up to £13k for senior positions.
This year the state of PR survey showed better results for women, but in terms of race people of Black and Minority Ethnicities represent 10% or less in all job roles. When you look at disabled people, there are less than 6% in all job roles and 0% of interns. And finally, when asked sexuality only 15% of all asked identified as a sexuality other than straight, this could also show that some are scared to share their sexuality with employers. Something that I am ashamed to admit that I didn't think about, was that in the survey there are only two gender options, so this is either protecting vulnerable people or people were not identified as anything else.