In a guest post on SVW, Bite’s Daniel Bernstein suggests that ‘Every starry-eyed PR professional that blogs believes, somewhere inside, that it can make them some kind of champion of business.’
In order to protect the good name of the industry and to ensure we present the right image, he thinks we should restrict the number of PR bloggers to the top echelons: ‘I believe blogging, as the delicate olive branch of PR, must be handled by the absolute best-of-the-best our industry offers. These are the Tim Dysons, the Richard Edelmans and the Andy Larks.’
Is he right? If we are to gain credibility at board-level should we make sure our forward-thinking champions are the principal voice they hear? Are there too many PR bloggers who open their mouths with nothing to say?
Or is the answer to show strength in depth? To encourage even junior and inexperienced professionals to blog and from that to learn? Should we be proud of the new talent coming through or encourage them to stay behind the scenes until they are ready to act as our ambassadors?
So should PR blogging be restricted to the best-of-the-best?
[For those reading this via a newsreader, there is an AJAX-based poll pasted below which may not appear in this post via RSS. Please vote on the site - thanks].