[LONG POST ALERT]

The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) in currently in the process of dealing with a bit of a flap over a guest post on their blog, ComPRehension. I thought it would be interesting to look at it from a case study point of view.

Here’s the situation as I understand it unfolding, as an outsider (I don’t normally read this blog nor am I a member of PRSA, though I do know a few of the players here, and I am not familiar with any history here – just looking at it purely at face value).

1. A guest post is published on the blog with the title “Status Update: Millennial Staffers Can Update Your Social Media Plans“.

The post contains some language which is pretty clearly negative towards Millennials specifically – such as the phrase “You don’t want them speaking to clients, let alone producing messaging.”

Second, it also contains statements which go against the grain of “social media common sense” such as: “A good starting point is to task new professionals with building up senior staffers’ profiles and networks on the organization’s social networking accounts“. I think almost anyone would have a reaction somewhere between “huh?” and “wtf?” to that.

Third, some points seem to directly contradict earlier statements – e.g. “the online space is an excellent opportunity to try out different messaging and programs, like tweetups and viral videos“, appearing after the author makes the point about not wanting Millennials to produce messaging.

Fourth, it seems to add insult to injury by then proposing that young professionals be sent (not invited!) to a networking event.

2. The post spreads on Twitter…

PRSA posts the link on Twitter (as they should) and it starts to generate a ton of tweets (84 as of the time of writing this), including some really upset/insulting/angry reactions.

3. Nine blog comments later…

At the same time, reactions begin to be posted in the comments to the blog post. At this point in the story, eight out of the first nine comments are disagreeing with the author, however the tone stays fairly measured and professional. But then…

4. BIG mistake.

The author posts a comment – then deletes it.

Here’s part of the text of the next comment: “Wow. Just wow! You have just solidified exactly what social media IS NOT with one comment. All of these people took time and effort to communicate with you and you blow them off with a self-promotion comment? Wow!

Oh, wait! you’ve deleted the comment! Don’t you know that’s a social media don’t?? Come on. Have you checked Twitter? You AND the PRSA are getting a lot of negative publicity because of your post. People have stated they will NOT be attending because of what you wrote here. Now THAT is how social media works. “

5. Damage control!

Three comments later, we see an official response from the PRSA. Here it is in its entirety:

“I’d like to jump in with PRSA’s perspective, if I might.

Arthur Yann is vice president of public relations for PRSA.”

Personally, I think this is a pretty good response. It’s a little overly defensive, but I can imagine it would be impossible not to have your heart beating just a little bit faster if you’re faced with this kind of situation, specifically when you sense that you can’t wait to let it sit for a while before you respond. While the guest blogger’s points were clearly not well made, I do agree with the PRSA’s explanation of what he was trying to say.

6. Reactions…

The next few comments thank the PRSA for their statement, but make the point that what is truly (now) the issue of contention is that the guest blogger “posted a quick comment promoting his upcoming speaking engagement, and brushing off the respectful questions and criticisms–and support, too. That comment quickly disappeared.”

7. Meanwhile…

While this is going on on the blog, Lauren Fernandez posts a reaction on her blog – which itself generates another whole slew of comments, including a response from the PRSA – which is copied verbatim from their blog response. People don’t like that at all, and unfortunately, the ensuing conversation becomes more and more adversarial.

Sharon Kneebone summarizes it well in her comment on the post: “After reading through this contentious thread I am struck by one thing. We have a PRSA staff member posting comments that are harsh, and lean toward vilifying an up-and-coming public relations professional. Lauren is a MEMBER of the staffer’s organization. One of the first lessons we teach new association professionals is that without members there is no reason for our organization to exist. Lauren is an active and productive volunteer for PRSA. Association staff work for the members. A member is not always right, but they are always a member. Differences of opinion do occur. Association staff must be especially careful on how they communicate those differences with members. Respectful communication is essential.”

Later, there is a #u30pro (PR professionals under 30) Twitter chat scheduled to discuss the blog post specifically. Here’s the transcript. It’s very interesting reading; I won’t go into any great detail on it, but clearly as a chat happening among mostly Millennials, we know what the jist is in terms of their reaction to the article. They pose the question, “How should the author have responded to the comments left?” Do read the thread, but essentially there is consensus that the author should have responded to individual comments and should not have deleted his one comment. “Why would you write a post you’re not willing 2 personally respond 2, acknowledge & learn from others opinions or at least defend“? I really recommend you scan the transcript, as they discuss the impact on the association itself towards the end.

8. Blogger response

Finally, the guest blogger posts his response – the next morning (!)

“I appreciate everyone who took the time and effort to respond to my blog. I think it’s important to emphasize that the opinion stated is my own and not PRSA’s. But my thoughts are consistent with a lot of my colleagues. My message to Young Professionals is somewhat different than what I would say to PR veterans, particularly those who precede even Web 1.0. I want them to understand the mindset of what management may be as the embark on their new career (keep in mind New Professionals are those within the first three years of the career). By encouraging them to help boost their managers’ online profiles, they may be helping their new agency be more relevant and visible in social media, thus also improving their value as new employees. It’s hard for senior managers to strike the right tone online (as my own blog bears witness).”

Interestingly, no-one directly responds to him (which in my mind seems to indicate general satisfaction (neither pro nor con) with his comment), but the conversation in the comments turns somewhat to figuring out lessons learned. (More on that in a minute).

9. Resolution

Finally, there appears to be resolution as the PRSA posts this on Lauren’s blog:

“There are important and, in many ways, eye-opening comments here. I’m going to respond to a number of them individually, as there are some consequential misunderstandings (my opinion) that will best be resolved in person or on the telephone.

To Lauren’s original post, I’ll also be inviting these individuals to work with PRSA’s New Professionals Section to develop cross-generational dialogue opportunities for millennial and senior professionals. Could be as informal as Tweetups or as formal as conference sessions. But, the idea would be to focus on both the role of new professionals within organizations and their social media efforts, and effective approaches to reverse mentoring.

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to offer their opinions here. If you have additional thoughts about the cross-generational dialogue idea – even if it’s to say, bad idea –please share them.

As I said in another blog post this a.m., I learned a lot from yesterday’s discussion (practical and psychographical), lessons that I won’t soon forget and mistakes I hope not to repeat.”

10. Lessons learned

I don’t think it’s necessary to belabor the point here, the story speaks for itself.

Basically, social media is a forum for discussion. It’s imperative that an author be willing to respond to dissenting views about what he or she posts, and quickly if necessary. The PRSA really did ok here, I think, at the end of the day, although 1) they should never have let themselves get so defensive as to be seen as browbeating a member of their organization, and 2) the guest blogger should never have deleted his initial response – that is a serious no-no in social media. If he realized after the fact that it was not the right thing to say, he should have apologized, and restated his case (which he did eventually). I think really the best solution would have been for him and the PRSA to take part in the Twitter chat, and be willing to talk to people in real time – whether to debate or to apologize doesn’t really matter, but just to be present and open to listening.

Of course this is my opinion; feel free to disagree!

And not to minimize the importance of this whole case study example, but it should be pointed out that Mercury has been in retrograde (and will be for the next week) – so everyone needs to watch out for disagreements. Just sayin’…

Maybe the last thought on this should be that we need to keep everything in perspective. We need to be open, we need to listen, we need to have clarity on our positions, we need to be willing to engage, we need to be open to being wrong sometimes.

• Share:
• Twitter
• Facebook
• Delicious
• Digg
• Buzz
• Association Jam

• Bit.ly URL for this post:
• http://bit.ly/vIaV1