The voted ended a passionate and looong debate this year for and against this change. To summarize, those for the amendment felt that removing the requirement would open board leadership to a much larger pool of candidates, while those against argued that holding an APR demonstrates the necessary commitment to the profession and the society.

I voted for the change, twice actually, as I held a proxy for our chapter’s other vote. I did so at the direction of the PRSA Silicon Valley board, which voted to support the amendment.

What made this debate interesting to me is that it encapsulated many wider issues in the transformation and evolution of the PR industry. From my point of view, those arguing against the amendment (at least those who spoke or wrote publicly) were largely motivated by a desire to slow change, to affirm their support for “the way things are” and to support the APR accreditation as a symbol of PR expertise.

On the other side, those supporting the amendment seemed to be crying out for the organization to modernize, to open its leadership to a wider pool of candidates, and to recognize that “public relations” as a profession and marketing function is rapidly evolving.

In the end, I think the amendment lost because it addressed a narrow issue, the APR requirement, rather than rewriting the entire “minimum requirements” bylaw altogether. In addition to the APR requirement, the minimum requirements still call for potential Board members to have served as a chapter or section board member or, at a minimum, to have been in the profession for 20 years.

As a membership organization, the only *minimum* requirement for board service should be that the person be a PRSA member for a minimum of 2-3 years. Such a low threshold would allow anyone with a demonstrated commitment to the organization to run for office, only barring insurgents seeking for some reason to take over the organization.

Why the bare minimum? Because the nomination and election process is the proper place to vet qualifications for leadership, not the bylaws. The pool should be as wide as possible, thus hopefully turning the election itself into an opportunity to debate and discuss the future of the organization and the profession.

If there’s anyone out there worrying about the business efficacy of this organization, I recommend that you take this vote as a warning sign of a hidebound association that may be too slow to change to meet the needs of tomorrow’s PR and marketing professionals.

[2010 PRSA International Conference]

That’s right, the new thing is to make your pitch via video. It’s certainly simple enough to do — plan your video, shoot it with an inexpensive video camera, upload it to Youtube and spread the link.

Makes a lot of sense, too. Video is such an incredibly powerful medium, and now, through the evolution of technology, we can all be fast and cheap video producers.

The key thing here is that a “vitch” can’t just be you reading your boring, stilted press release into the camera. You need to show something — the newsmakers, the location, something, anything tangible. This, by itself, takes PR people out of their jargon-filed comfort zone.

I just picked up on this word so I don’t have any good examples of video pitches and their results, but the whole thing makes a lot of sense to me. I plan to try it this month just to see what happens.

What does stun me is all the media and sponsor handwringing and clucking that has ensued now that the stories about Tiger’s wild party life have burst into the open. Where were you, golf media, when Tiger had a bottle of Cristal in one hand and a babe on each arm? Were you partying along with him? Were you up in your rooms playing Nintendo? Or were you just flat out clueless?

And sponsors, starting with Accenture: you mean to tell me that you didn’t check out Tiger’s behavior before or while you employed him? You didn’t do any due diligence to find out if the image you were buying was real? And you want me to trust you (Accenture) with my corporate consulting work?

It seems clear to me that the media, sponsors and the PGA tour all turned a blind eye toward Tiger’s behavior, for one good ‘ol fashioned reason: money. The man has made billions for all the parties above, boosting ratings and selling soap. He was their cash cow, their golden goose. To call him on his behavior would have been commercial suicide.

I understand that too. But spare me the holier-than-thou statements now generally along the lines of “we didn’t know” or “he doesn’t represent the right image for us.” Puh-leeze. How about “we knew all along but we didn’t say anything, so we share the blame for this unfortunate situation, and we’ll do a better job next time.”

PS — And then there’s his wife, Elin Nordegren. She knew before she married Tiger that he was a major ladies man, yet she jumped on the gravy train as well. Here’s People mag, via the NY Daily News:

Nordegren’s friends tell People she knew about Woods’ extracurricular activities but that he promised before their marriage that he would change.

“Elin had talked to other golfers and their wives about Tiger’s wild parties,” a friend told the magazine. “When she asked Tiger about it, he said he would stop doing it. And she believed him. But he never did.”

I’ve been working on the media/PR divide much of my career. I was known as a sympathic media person who helped PR people figure out if they had a story for me, and as a PR person, I’ve worked hard to teach PR people how to do a better job interacting with the media.

I’ve mostly considered it a lost cause to try to educate the media about PR, even though that was one of my original goals. Media people generally split into two camps: those who “get” the role of PR and deal with it, and those who “hate” PR and always bitch about it. Sometimes those in the latter group migrate to the former, but they need to do it in their own time. No use trying to teach them — their ears do not hear.

Despite this persistent divide, some people obviously think it can be overcome. At least, that appears to be the gist of the strategy of a new company, Plato’s Forms, which says is mission is:

developing solutions for companies and journalists that help address some of these challenging aspects of communications in the online media environment.

At this time, they say no more. In Silicon Valley-speak, they are in “stealth” mode, meaning they are developing their offering behind closed doors and plan to make a big splash when they unveil it at a later date. For now, they’ve got a half-mil to work with, partly from the pocket of founder Darryl Siry.

Their name, btw, refers to the philosopher Plato, who, their web site says, “held that we could not comprehend the true form of things, and could only grasp the reflections of their true meaning, as if they were shadows reflected on the wall.” At least one philosophy major disputes this reading, however, judging from the comments about the company on a TechCrunch post.

But is it goodbye golf game and goodbye endorsements? No and probably not.

Woods issued another statement today, this time saying he “let my family down and I regret those transgressions.” [Full text of Tiger Woods' statement here.]

But just as Tiger redefined golf, he may be in the process of redefining celebrity scandal-mongering. His statement goes on to say:

No matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy… Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn’t have to mean public confessions.

That’s right. He hasn’t been accused of using performance-enhancing drugs, betting on the game, animal cruelty or physical violence. Those are the types of things that derail sports careers.

He’s one of the world’s sexiest men, he probably had and has woman propositioning him constantly, and he took some of them up on it, even after he was married. That makes him a fool and a cad, but that’s all. No evidence yet that he paid for it, a la Eliot Spitzer, who after all was an elected official, and a sanctimonious one at that. Unless this saga goes into one of the above-mentioned areas, I think it tarnishes him but doesn’t really afffect his public life.

Further, I really like that he shot back at the media mongrels who are demanding more information and confessionals. Tough. If you want information, go dig it out. He owes you absolutely nothing.

In the meantime, on Sunday, Tiger released a statement that, I thought, hit all the right notes.

Here’s the statement:

As you all know, I had a single-car accident earlier this week, and sustained some injuries. I have some cuts, bruising and right now I’m pretty sore.

This situation is my fault, and it’s obviously embarrassing to my family and me. I’m human and I’m not perfect. I will certainly make sure this doesn’t happen again.

This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way. Although I understand there is curiosity, the many false, unfounded and malicious rumors that are currently circulating about my family and me are irresponsible.

The only person responsible for the accident is me. My wife, Elin, acted courageously when she saw I was hurt and in trouble. She was the first person to help me. Any other assertion is absolutely false.

This incident has been stressful and very difficult for Elin, our family and me. I appreciate all the concern and well wishes that we have received. But, I would also ask for some understanding that my family and I deserve some privacy no matter how intrusive some people can be.

Here’s what I like about the statement and the strategy it implies:

1. He gives some helpful details at the beginning
2. He shifts the story back to its core — a single-car accident, mostly on private property, minor injuries, my fault. He went on the offense instead of playing defense.
3. He clearly states and repeats that he wants his privacy, as would any of us, famous or not, in such a case involving a minor accident.
4. He praises his wife, signaling a united front with her.

The fact is, none of us — the general public, his fans, the police or the media — really needs more information about this situation. I think the police acted irresponsibly in showing up at his house twice for an interview, thereby giving TV a fresh shot to air, when they could have called on the phone and been told whether or not he would speak to them. It looked to me like the cops were seeing this case as a possible gravy train rather than focusing on doing their jobs.

Is Tiger having an affair? Was his wife whacking him with a golf club as he ran out of the house and jumped in his car? Who knows? If you care, go to TMZ.com and get your fill.

Here’s a blessedly sane media story with the headline “Tiger doesn’t owe us an explanation.”

For the past couple of years, I’ve been involved with PRSA’s Silicon Valley Chapter, and our big event of the year is “Media Predicts,” a lively dinner, networking opportunity and panel discussion of predictions for next year in technology. It’s on Wednesday, Dec. 2 at the Computer History Museum, and it draws 300 people and dozens of top tech PR agencies and corporate PR departments.

This year, we’ve added two new wrinkles — an opening stand-up comedy monologue by name-brand comic Will Durst, and a “Student Silent Auction” in which top PR students from San Jose State are auctioning themselves off [proceeds to their school's PR program] to be PR interns at agencies or companies.

As my title implies, I think this is turning into the top must-attend event in PR on the West Coast, assuming you have a business interest in technology [and these days, who doesn't?]. It’s a see-and-be-seen opportunity for the tech PR community, which is especially valuable in this Twittering/Facebooking/email world of impersonal communications.

Here’s the list of tech media speakers, followed by a list of the companies who have already signed up to sponsor this event and host tables. For more information, go to the PRSA Silicon Valley page or the registration page.

• Ben Worthen, Wall Street Journal & Digits
• Brad Stone, New York Times & Bits Blog
• Byron Acohido, USA Today, LastWatchDog
• Connie Guglielmo, Bloomberg News
• Matt Marshall, VentureBeat & DEMO
• Om Malik, GigaOM
• Steven Levy, WIRED
• Jim Goldman, CNBC (moderator)
• Duffy Jennings, SFGate (emcee)

Sponsors so far:

Premier Event Sponsor:

• Yahoo

Platinum:

• Microsoft
• SAP

Gold:

• Blanc & Otus
• Market Wire
• Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide
• Trainer Communications
• Weber Shandwick

Bronze:

• Access Communications
• A&R Edelman
• Brunswick
• Dell
• Eastwick
• Fleishman-Hillard
• BusinessWire
• SanDisk
• Voce
• Waggener Edstrom

After starting her blog in 2007, she says she was besieged with free product — full-size samples of everything she could possibly want. She describes being fairly journalistic about methodically trying the products and reviewing them. But more came in than she could handle and she gave a lot of it away to her friends and readers.

Then, the recession hit, and the companies a) got chintzy with the samples and b) wanted more out of sending a sample than the possibility of a post — they wanted guaranteed good coverage.

It’s a good post and worth reading for a firsthand account of how the other half lives. My value-add will be the PR perspective:

There are effectively no barriers to entry in blogging — anyone can be a waitress one day and “fashion and beauty blogger” the next (or both at the same time).

Pre-Internet, the barriers to being a recognized and influential writer were fairly high, which made it possible for PR to figure out who to deal with and what they were getting out of the arrangement.

Now, since anyone and everyone can position themselves as “influential,” PR has a lot more trouble to deal with. Accept anyone’s claim to legitimacy and you end up giving away your products, or set up barriers and get blowback like this.

This new one says, we get it (2007 edition). That is to say, it is clean, easy to navigate, but static. There’s no video on the homepage, no Twitter feed, no industry news on the homepage. The rotating images on the homepage are clearly clipart, and pretty generic “businesspeople” at that, rather than real PR people in action [how about shots at the national conference, PR people working with a journalist, PR people working with a graphic artist? just some thoughts].

Nevertheless, an overall vast improvement.

One serious nit to pick, however: where did they get their map of the U.S.? Specifically, take a look at the shape of Alaska. What is that, the GOP elephant version of Alaska?

Here’s what Alaska really looks like:

Codependency is one of the most common terms in psychology and one with a very broad definition. It derives from the behavior of people who live with alcoholics or other addicts and have had to adjust their methods of coping to account for the addiction. But it really encompasses a broad set of behaviors that you can certainly exhibit even if you didn’t grow up in an alcoholic or drug-using environment.

It boils down to this: do you consistently act in ways in which you alone are responsible for your own sense of well-being, or do you rely on the actions or behaviors of others to determine your mood? If the latter, then you have a codependent personality.

It seems to me that having a codependent personality is a good thing if you are in PR.Why? Here are some of the hallmarks of codependency (from the Mental Health America web site):

• An exaggerated sense of responsibility for the actions of others
• A tendency to do more than your share, all of the time
• A tendency to become hurt when people don’t recognize your efforts
• An extreme need for approval and recognition
• A sense of guilt when asserting yourself
• A compelling need to control others
• Lying/dishonesty

Here’s are a few key questions about being codependent:

• Do you keep quiet to avoid arguments?
• Are you always worried about others’ opinions of you?
• Are the opinions of others more important than your own?
• Are you uncomfortable expressing your true feelings to others?
• Do you feel like a “bad person” when you make a mistake?
• Do you think people in your life would go downhill without your constant efforts?
• Do you have difficulty talking to people in authority, such as the police or your boss?
• Do you have trouble saying “no” when asked for help?

Doesn’t all this sound like a PR job? The impossible-to-please clients, the vague objectives, the sense that you can “always do more,” the notion that PR people should never express their opinions, or if they do, they better do it super-nicely, and of course, the big one, dishonesty. This may be good for business in the short run, but it’s bound to create unhappy PR professionals. While I do believe that there is a non-codependent way to conduct PR, it may not be as profitable as taking the codependent route.

I’m not trying to shame or embarrass anyone here. But we so often talk only about the minutiae of PR. Maybe it’s time we talked about something really important.