Paul Holmes is one of the most popular PR analysts and the creator of one of the most influential PR publications in the world, the Holmes Report. For more than two decades he has not only worked as a publisher, writing about trends in the development of the PR industry, but he has also consulted PR firms and their clients. Paul Holmes is the organizer of the international PR awards competition SABRE. This competition determines which are the leading PR and marketing agencies and assesses their achievements. Paul Holmes was in Sofia for a round table discussion on modern standards in PR and problems in the industry, at the invitation of the Bulgarian Association of PR Agencies (BAPRA).

You've been writing about the PR industry for the last 25 years. Can you name anything that you don't like in this business?

There are too many people in the PR industry, who are satisfied with doing just superficial stuff. There's a big difference between a press agent and a PR. The first are good in getting media coverage, while the PR practitioners have to be good in building relationships with all the parties concerned - consumers, employees, shareholders etc. One of the problems in the industry is that anyone can call himself/herself a PR. Another problem is that not enough is invested in research or in effectiveness assessment. PR practitioners rely primarily on their instincts, instead of studying the consumers. They evaluate their work by the media coverage that they have received. It's like saying: "We did launched advertisements, so we know that our campaign has been successful." But in fact we are successful, only if those ads and media coverage have excited people to do something - whether to buy the product, work for the company, etc.

Then which are the right instruments for measuring the effects of PR?

From the beginning of a certain PR campaign the most important thing is to know what you want to achieve. Receiving media coverage is not a business objective. The most basic question, which can serve as a measure for the effect of PR is: "Would you recommend this company's product or service to your friends or relatives?"

Do you think that if the PR's had more influence in a company, their job would be more effective?

Yes. Most companies use PR too late, after all the decisions have been made. I think that the PR practitioners should be involved in the decision making. I'm not saying that they can determine what can and cannot be done by the company, but I believe that they should be part of the discussion. In many firms there is an ongoing battle between the lawyer and the PR, in which the PR recommends silence in case of a problem, while the lawyer insists on active communication. Usually the lawyer wins, because companies are more scared by the law than by the public opinion. But by the time the court fight is over, the firm will have already lost its reputation.

Currently in Bulgaria it's common for companies to be active in the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR). How do you think people should invest in CSR?

What irritates me in the discussions about CRS is that companies talk about it like it should somehow give back in terms of investment. Those, who really want to be responsible, should first make sure that they are doing the least harm. Some companies think that it's enough to operate 364 days as usual and on the 365^th day to donate to an environmental group or to clean the park. This is completely wrong. First of all, people will not judge them only on this exact day, but for the rest of the 364 days as well. Second, if they don't keep their business environmentally friendly, and eventually buy themselves good reputation, this will make consumers even more suspicious. I think that it's very harmful to develop a CRS program, which is not consistent and does not correspond to the way you behave every day. And if a company does CRS only for the sake of media attention, then this is not CRS at all, but a bad PR. In fact, a company should be prepared for a lot of skepticism and obscenity from the media. And it should demonstrate true and long-term devotion to the cause, before people start to actually believe in it.

Why is the PR industry failing in managing its own reputation?

I have a problem with referring to PR and advertising as one whole, because advertising budgets have always been larger than those of the PR. Many PR companies are owned by large advertising corporations and are their branches. Advertising has always been the dominant business and I don't like this not only because I'm a PR person, but also because I think that PR is a process, which manages relationships and this process requires the use of different instruments. Advertising on the other hand is an instrument, a mean of communication. I'm skeptical toward the idea of integrated marketing communications, because they tend to put the wrong instruments on the foreground. If one receives more revenue from advertising, then one tends to think that the solution to every problem lies in advertising. But it actually doesn't. Because it's much more difficult to persuade people with an advertisement, than if you talk to them in person or online, or if you talk to journalists that can be trusted.

According to the reports made by the major media agencies PR copes better than the advertising industry in recession. Is this the reason why?

Yes, this is the answer. Major advertisers have ordered surveys, which measure which parts of the marketing campaign contribute most to the brand, and most of the surveys that I've seen, show that a large part of the money allocated to advertising, are going to waste. In fact they have reached the point of insignificant return of investment. On the other hand, not enough is being allocated to PR. I don't want to sound too extreme, apparently there is a role for advertising; however I think this role should be a supporting one. One of the problems of the advertising business is that sometimes creativity draws the attention to the ad itself and not to the product. One says that the ad is great, but one does not necessarily say that the product is great. Many advertisements have been created as if their aim is to win a Gold Lion at the Cannes International Advertising Festival, and not to sell a particular product.

What would you advise the Bulgarian PR practitioners?

I've known the PR business in Bulgaria from what I've seen as applications for the PR awards competition SABRE, which I'm organizing. The quality of work in the major agencies in Bulgaria is as good as that in other European countries. However, the greatest challenge for the Bulgarian PR industry is to attract, develop and keep the best talents. PR agencies have to look not only for the best PR students, but also business, journalism and marketing students. The PR professionals have to believe that as an industry PR sustains the highest standards and I think that the only way to improve the industry reputation is to act ethical and do a good job. I also think that the PR in Bulgaria, as a new market, has the advantage of not following the bad habits of more developed countries in the industry.