College of Charleston Executive-in-Residence Tom Martin hits the nail on the head with his call to action on the PR industry’s growing gender imbalance.
Like Tom, I lecture at many college campuses. I also speak at PRSSA conferences and the Council of PR Firms’ most excellent Summer Internfests. Like Tom, I’ve noticed the increasing gender imbalance (he cites a current PRSA member survey revealing that 89 percent are women!). And, like Tom, I agree the lack of men is troubling, since we need to reflect the society in which we live.
Unlike Tom, though, I’m less than sanguine about the success of any education campaign aimed at attracting more young men to our ranks. Why? Because I think peer pressure is the real reason keeping the average college guy from expressing interest in public relations. What red-blooded guy wants to be seen as a "party girl?"
Most high school and college students see PR as a mix of "cocktail parties," "fashion shows" and all things "glam." The reason why is obvious: popular culture has squarely positioned PR jobs that way. "Sex and the city," "The Hills" and hundreds of lesser
known TV shows and movies almost invariably portray PR professionals as
gum-cracking, hair-twirling young ladies. But, as those of us in the profession know, Hollywood is grossly distorting the truth. Most distaff members of the PR industry work on everything from crisis communications and new product introductions to high-level executive coaching and strategic counseling. The Lizzie Grubmans are few and far between.
But until, and unless, we can lobby Hollywood to alter its misleading stereotyping, PR will continue to be totally dominated by young women. And, that lack of gender diversity spells big trouble in the long-term, just as it would for any industry that is too heavily skewed towards a particular race or gender.
Please accept my apologies Mr. Cody. I completely misinterpreted, misrepresented and maligned the premise of your blog. I didn’t fully appreciate, though you provided ample evidence (read: “visit Peppercom and count the number of females in high-level positions”)that your statements were NOT an intended or unconscious insult to women who chose a career in PR. Thanks for the following point of clarification “[a]s I said in my original blog, what red-blooded guy wants to enter a field Hollywood depicts as being chock full of party planners?” Alas you were directing the blog at the fellas. The many fellas who cannot distinguish Sex and the City from real life and who hang on to the exploits of Lizzie Grubman as representative of PR. Chin up Repman, would you really want such dolts working for you?
Great feedback, Trish. Exactly the original point Tom Martin was making in his PR Week piece and me in my blog.
Last year I guest lectured at two universities and one of my final slides was titled, “What PR isn’t.” On that slide was an image of Samantha and Lizzie Grubman. Then a few months later I had a shadow for the day from the TPS department (no joke). My shadow wanted to learn more about PR and thought it was all parties. She was so disappointed and she never even sent me a thank you and I gave her nail polish! PR stereotypes just make our job that much more difficult to earn respect.
As far as men, after my lectures a few stopped by to ask questions…. they were most concerned with whether they would stay busy. They didn’t want to (just) sit behind a desk.
I’ll be happy to elaborate, PRHottie. I believe that if Hollywood keeps misrepresenting the role young women play in public relations, we’ll continue to struggle to attract young men (and serious young women). As I said in my original blog, what red-blooded guy wants to enter a field Hollywood depicts as being chock full of party planners?
Steve: Thanks for the movie recommendation. I saw one (too many) Adam Sandler movie, and his humor is doesn’t speak to me. Nicholson was obviously in it solely for the pay check.
Stacy: I’m sorry about calling you out as “wrong.” I cannot read Mr. Cody’s intentions, I’m left with and based my analysis solely on his written words. Indeed, Steve admits that he “said” something far different from that which he wrote and I apologize for not, as you did, appreciating the distinction.
Steve & Stacy: Ignore this comment or explain, with contextual reference, the following quote from Steve’s original blog: “But until, and unless, we can lobby Hollywood to alter its misleading stereotyping, PR will continue to be totally dominated by young women.”
Thanks Stacy. That’s exactly what I was saying. It’s actually a two-fold problem: the “PR chick” persona and the lack of gender diversity. Both need to be corrected.
Speaking of Hollywood, PRHottie, you might want to rent the film “Anger Management.” And, if you’d like to see a real world example of my “anachronistic” views, come visit Peppercom and count the number of females in high-level positions. You missed my point entirely: our industry needs to represent the society in which we live. Unless I’ve missed something, our general population is equal parts male and female.
Stacy, you are wrong. Steve said: “Like Tom, I’ve noticed the increasing gender imbalance (he cites a current PRSA member survey revealing that 89 percent are women!).” Then he makes a direct association with the imbalance and women’s general inability to distinguish reality from a TV show. Indeed, Steve thinks “we” should “lobby” Hollywood (whatever that means) to either (1) protect the PR industry from deluded chicks or (2) protect deluded chicks from their delusions of PR grandeur.
Steve, you said: “Address a controversial subject and one is likely to receive a controversial post.” I suggest that the subject of the blog is not–in and of itself–controversial; it is your anachronistic analysis that is controversial. I’m taking your request for help at face value. Here goes … Steve you’ve been in this industry for a long time and the obvious corollary to the theme of your blog is: the REASON that back in your day, when you and your kind made up 99% of the PR industry, WAS that neither “Sex and the City” (certainly) nor cable television (likely) existed. Yeah that’s why so few women or minorities populated our industry back in your day, no cable TV.
I am also very passionate about this topic. While changing the profession’s perception is important to recruit men and women alike, it’s as important–I’d argue perhaps more important–to change the perception for those who are NOT in the industry. It’s difficult enough to get C-level executives to understand the value and power of public relations without some of the “PR chick” perceptions that are out there. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been asked how to “spin” something.
So, PRHottie, I don’t think RepMan was saying the female professionals in the industry can’t understand the difference. But, I think the rest of the world may not get it, which definitely damages the industry’s reputation.
Thanks for tackling this important subject, Steve. I’ve seen a few cover letters that hint at a perception of a “glam” industry/profession and it is indeed troubling.
Address a controversial subject and one is likely to receive a controversial post. Thanks for your comment, PRHottie. As indicated, I’m very concerned about our industry’s image and reputation, and I believe we should try and turn around the negative or superficial perceptions created by Hollywood. Do you have any suggestions?
Hey Steve, it’s a good thing men aren’t as gullible or ignorant as women, isn’t it. Else there’d be a slew of horned-up guys lined around the block trying to get a job working in an industry populated by older, attractive, hard drinking nymphomaniacs. We “gum-cracking, hair-twirling young ladies” sure are dumb–not being able to tell the difference between TV and “real life” and all.
as as young woman (who is gorgeous by the way) I thought that working in PR would be a glamorous job filled with parties of A-list celebs. Little did I know that what a career in PR really entails is endless media reports and calling mean journalists all day. All Samantha Jones did in Sex and the City was represent huge celebrities like Lucy Lui, how do I get that job?
🙂
I have considered and still may consider a career in PR. As opposed to cocktails and runways, it is the ever-changing creative challenges that attract me to the industry. I have no agency experience however, and I find that firms are often unwilling to talk to me. This is not a complaint but a point: It might be a good idea to look within other industries to farm talent rather than attempting to change the minds of the young and impressionable.
To see how successful such a model can be, look at a hedge fund like D.E. Shaw. The outside-the-box thinking that says, “A seasoned, tournament-winning chess champion has the potential to be a much more immediately valuable trader than a 21 year-old finance major,” has brought them a $40B portfolio.
I would think the type of person so deeply influenced by TV and films (or even peer pressure) would likely not be a good candidate at a solid firm – or at least I would hope this is the case. After all, a person whose view of an industry can be shaped by Hollywood is likely not the type of high-level creative thinker that a good firm would want. No? Said person should probably look into police work so he can go around shooting drug dealers daily (without having to file hours of paperwork each time his firearm is discharged) and sleeping with models.