If you dare to criticize Jack, you get his rants plastered all over your blog, even on posts that are unrelated.

http://overtonecomm.blogspot.com/2009/06/don-worry-how-to-solve-any-problem.html

Thanks for posting my comments! At least you allow me a defense. When the Society attacked me in a full page in the Sept. 2008 Tactics, it would not print a word of mine in rebuttal.

The PR Society must be studied in all its details, many of which are only too visible. No one should shrink from analyzing this group.

I’m continually surprised that no professor or grad student has tried to figure out what is going on and why PR Society leaders behave the way they do.

I will be covering one way or another the “smoke-filled rooms” of the PRS leaders this weekend, a throwback to the old days of insiders carving up whatever. This is backroom politics at its worst.

If there’s a throwback here it’s not me but the PR Society and its flight from democratic, open practices.

Main game is wining and dining the chapter presidents-elect not only with food and drink ($500 stipend, free dinner Friday night) but promises of national titles, possible board positions, Silver Anvil judge, new business and job leads, etc. National can do a lot of favors for chapter leaders.

Up until 1987, this meeting was the “Spring Assembly” at which delegates represented member interests. Now it’s turned into a “rally” in support of national leaders.

One aim is to eliminate district representation on the board—have all directors be “at-large” only. The chapters and the districts are a threat to national’s dominance!

National must be preserved at all costs so that the 54 staffers can continue to collect $5.4 million in pay/fringes (about $100K per staffer). This is 47.7% of total expenses of $11,439,874. This is an unusually high percentage. It should be one-third or in the high 30’s.

It’s been many years since PRS revealed the names of the Assembly delegates. Even the delegates are not told who the other delegates are. The list used to be in the delegates’ packet.

As you can see, PRS refuses to use modern tools of communication such as the web to broadcast its meetings. Audiocasting the “Leadership Rally” would cost next to nothing.

It should have audiocast the 2008 Assembly. It refuses to give out the 136-page transcript of that Assembly although I have three such transcripts that were given me on floppy disks.

In its zest to block communication, PRS has become government by the few.

Jack O'Dwyer

You must realize this is the spin industry you’re dealing with. Well-used techniques (not used by all) include spinning something from their point of view, framing so you see things in their light, throwing red herrings (that smell) to make you lose the trail, and many other tricks. People are easily tricked, as P.T. Barnum discovered long ago.

Saying I’m boring because I keep thrashing PRS is like saying we should give up on Iraq, detectives should give up on a case, doctors should stop trying to find a cure for various diseases.

When I write about the PR Society, I write about the entire industry because PRS is a reflection of that. The great bulk of their members go along with these stonewalling tactics because that’s what they do. Institutions are especially bad.

PRS’s tactics of never seeing reporters or even talking to them on the phone (I’m the only reporter covering them) is rampant. The trend today is communicating only via e-mail. PR is at its weakest ever although its people are doing a lot of marketing. But marketing is not PR.

I write about plenty of other things including the finances of the conglomerates who almost bought out the PR field (the Big Four owe about $16 billion) and Page/PR Seminar, the association of the corporate biggies. There are already plenty of people writing about Twitter all the time. Am I supposed to join them?

Don’t be tricked by that line, “Oh, there goes Jack again, criticizing us.” That is what’s known as a “smear,” a generalized criticism that lacks specifics. It’s equivalent to name-calling. They almost never change. They refuse to defer dues income like almost every other association and are guilty of de facto racial discrimintion. Only three blacks have been on their board in 62 years and one of them quit after six months. They refuse to name a black to their current board.

A handful of APRs (accrediteds) have run the show for 35 years, squeezing out the more than 80% of members who are not APR.

The weakness of the PR function in general is evident at PRS h.q. where all the PR pros were booted out in 1980 and only one or two token PR people are allowed (and they are on a very short lease I can tell you). PR pros are not even welcome at their own house!

The study of PRS is the study of the industry. Don’t let them trick you. I hammer at the same things because they almost never change. This is a very obstinate group that is communication-averse. They only use a small fraction of modern communications tools. Their website is not searchable. Just try to search something sometime.

I agree with Cheryl, a droning ranter is just tuned out. I once asked Jack if he ever thought about changing his approach, since it's not working? He just started another rant. Even if he is right no one is listening anymore. In fact, I would say that at this point PRSA is more secretive BECAUSE of him.

As for social media, he is known for posting entire manifestos as a comment to an unrelated post on local PRSA blogs. Then he says he wants open access to post his opinions on all of these blogs. He completely doesn't get how these things work. PRSA isn't allowed to publish at will on his platform.

Honestly, I feel sorry for him because he is really out of touch and from all accounts he used to be a respected industry leader.

The shame is Jack has always been right but no one listened to him. So the continual fault was not that he never quit speaking on the topic but that no one joined in with him and no one in the industry listened, which doesn't make them right or him a kook. Sometimes people like that know they are so right and that's what keeps them going. Now, if he were strategic about it, he'd spend more of his time behind the scenes building a coalition for his position, but that's not him. He's more of a tell-it-like-it-is, straight-shooter.

I agree with you, Roula. If ranting is not instigating change in any form, then what's the point? It's like hearing my dad rant about teen drivers after I'm in my thirties.