The FDA’s draft industry guidance for off-label responses to consumers’ health care queries is a start but could benefit from specifics to appropriately advise health care communicators.

Last week, PRSA and the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) filed joint comments with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concerning its proposed social media guidelines. Our central points can be summed up as follows: self-regulation works, and professional communicators and marketers are responsible and ethical practitioners.

The comments are a continuation of PRSA’s recent regulatory affairs work with the Federal Trade Commission and the Senate Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight.

The feedback we provided the FDA reflects the core values of PRSA’s Code of Ethics. We made clear our belief that public relations professionals are keen to protect consumers’ rights through open and honest communications, while advocating for the brands they represent. Those goals do not have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, each can enhance the quality of information provided to the public through proactive and transparent communications practices.

Our comments are the culmination of a long-standing advocacy campaign by PRSA to obtain adequate social media guidelines from the FDA. Through a variety of commentary pieces, we have expressed our perspective that the regulatory framework that currently governs health care and pharmaceutical brands’ online communications with consumers is inadequate. Moreover, the lack of specificity in that framework has led to inaccurate and outdated information swirling around the Internet concerning health care and wellness issues.

It is crucial that the FDA presents viable guidance for how companies can utilize social media to accommodate consumers’ fact-finding needs concerning health care and wellness issues. While a start, the proposed Guidelines lack specificity and relevance that communicators and marketers require to successfully perform their jobs within FDA guidelines. (Related: Dear FDA: Your Social Media Guidance is Requested)

Continue reading " Reviewing the FDA’s Proposed Social Media Guidelines "

As the public relations industry grows in size and stature, it is coming under increasing scrutiny by the public, media and government. But not all scrutiny is bad, especially if it helps broaden the understanding of a profession and advances its role and value.

Twice in the past year there have been investigations into public relations spending by the federal government. The most recent was launched in late February by Senator Claire McCaskill (D–Mo.) and Senator Rob Portman (R–Ohio), who have triggered a wide-ranging investigation of the federal government’s use of public relations and advertising services. At the initial stages of this inquiry the Subcommittee is seeking data for the past five years pertaining to “contracts for the acquisition of public relations, publicity, advertising, communications, or similar services” at 11 separate Federal agencies.  We have our concerns, which we expressed directly with the Senators and through an op-ed published in Roll Call.

It isn’t surprising that government spending on public relations is being scrutinized during times of economic austerity, when politicians of all stripes compete to be the most prudent with taxpayers’ funds. Such scrutiny — if conducted fairly and objectively — may prove valuable for public relations.

Continue reading " Congress Investigates PR: Will It Like What It Sees? "

Editor’s note: The following is an excerpt from an op-ed published today in Roll Call. The opinion piece was written by PRSA Chair and CEO Gerard F. Corbett, APR, Fellow PRSA, in response to a Senate investigation into the federal government’s use of public relations and advertising contracts. PRSA also sent letters to Senator Claire McCaskill (D–Mo.) and Senator Rob Portman (R–Ohio), who are leading the investigation, to express its concerns with the investigation.

The Senate’s investigation into government use of public relations services is detrimental to restoring the public’s trust in politicians.

When faced with a tough re-election battle, what is the easiest path to winning over John Q. Public? Proposing proactive solutions that benefit your constituents or taking on an industry you deem to have too much influence?

In the case of Sens. Claire McCaskill (D–Mo.) and Rob Portman (R–Ohio), the answer appears to be the latter. As Roll Call reported Feb. 29, the pair is trying to appease cost-conscious voters with a “wide-ranging investigation” of the federal government’s use of public relations and advertising services.

As chairman of an organization that represents 32,000 public relations professionals in the United States, I share the Senators’ concern that the government prudently spends taxpayer dollars. What I question, however, is their motivation and seeming interest in using the PR industry as a punching bag for America’s dysfunctional political system.

In an era of disastrously low trust in government and politicians, McCaskill and Portman’s investigation may be missing the proverbial boat. It disregards public relations’ central value to government: its ability to engender a more informed society through ethical, transparent and honest communications between the government and its citizens.

Therefore, any investigation into the government’s use of PR firms should not be undertaken unilaterally. It must be met by an equally robust examination of how the government communicates with the public and how it can better use innovative PR firms and professionals to best reach and inform citizens.

Killing the messenger won’t make the government’s public trust and transparency issues disappear.

Continue reading " PRSA to Congress: Don’t Kill the PR Messenger "

PR professionals were inundated this week with news about the movement to thwart the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA). On Wednesday, social forums like Wikipedia and Reddit blacked out their sites in protest of the bills. Even Google acquired 45 million signatures for its anti-SOPA petition. For many PR pros, the challenge was how to react to an issue that may affect the way communication professionals do their job.

PRSA’s inaugural “Friday Five” blog post — an analysis of the week’s big news and commentary in the PR profession — looks at various perspectives on the issue. We also examine how social media has become a vital resource for enforcing accountability among political candidates and government.

It’s time for the PR profession to join the opposition to SOPA and PIPA (Shel Holtz / A Shel of My Former Self)

PR pro and blogger Shell Holtz raised the banner that PR pros should take a stand against any legislation that threatens the freedom of expression on the Net. Holtz notes that SOPA will have a large impact on anyone who uses social media tools to communicate, including PR pros. It’s become very easy to post a video from YouTube or share photos with friends via Slideshare.  However, under SOPA, Internet service providers could be ordered to block the domain name, which means that once YouTube, Slideshare, or any other social domain goes dark, your links and pictures on Facebook and Twitter will go dark as well. So where do we draw the line between social governance and blacking out a person’s ability to do their job?

Related:

• PRSA Statement in Opposition of SOPA and PIPA
• #SOPA and #PIPA: Separating the Real from the Rhetoric (PRSAY)
  

Continue reading " Friday Five: #SOPA and The New Tech PR Paradigm "

Unbeknownst to most Americans, Washington has been waging copyright and intellectual property battles for years, many of which I witnessed while working for the Motion Picture Association of America (a SOPA and PIPA supporter) and, now, PRSA (a SOPA and PIPA opponent). Having seen the issue from both sides, I’m in a unique position to provide what has so far been missing from this debate: a balanced perspective.

RELATED: PRSA issues statement in opposition of SOPA and PIPA.

As you may have noticed, the one constant throughout the current debate over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) has been hyperbole, with each side insisting a legislative defeat would be ruinous to the economy, innovation and American competitiveness. It reminds me of 1982, when former MPAA CEO Jack Valenti famously testified to Congress that, “The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone!”

But even as both sides have claimed victories in the battles that comprise the larger war, none of the predicted gloom and doom has come to pass. It’s business as usual for most, if not all, the major players involved.

The root cause of this war is a complex matter that confuses many, and bores most. At its core, the concept of copyright as codified in U.S. law is this: the creators of works are entitled to a limited period of time during which they have the exclusive right to use and profit from their work. (This same concept was expressed a bit differently by Samuel Johnson, who famously wrote, “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”)

At the same time, it is generally understood that, at a certain point, public good results from works being released from their copyrights and that, in certain cases, “fair use” should allow for the use of copyrighted materials without the permission of copyright owners.

While these principles are generally agreed to by all, how they should be interpreted — especially as technology continues to evolve — has created endless wrangling and debate. In overly simplistic terms, copyright owners — many times large corporations that have invested hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars developing their works — would like to see protection of their copyrighted assets extended forever. On the other side of the argument, companies who benefit from the use, hosting and sharing of copyrighted works prefer liberal use without permission (or at least that someone other than them be charged with enforcement, when copyright laws are broken).

Continue reading " #SOPA and #PIPA: Separating the Real from the Rhetoric "