BAK

Is there a size limit on comments?

We have not set a limit on comment size, but there are some practical limits:

First, MySql’s text datatype allows for columns of 65kb, I believe, which is about twice the size of the US constitution, below.

Second, you are posting form data to us. Although our firewall does not limit form post payload size, some firewalls do. You’ll have to ask your friendly neighborhood IT folks to be sure.

Third, there is always pilot error.

FYI I posted this huge comment using the same interface everyone else does and it came through 100% intact.

:c

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

——————————————————————————–

(See Note 1)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(truncated by request)

Supporting members? Perhaps the single best thing anyone could do to support members is to speak out about what professional best practices are.

If this keeps up, lapsed members like me may come back. Go, Warren, go. P.S. Warren, there will come a day when you get too busy for this. Plan for that day now so the blog can carry on.

My only concern is that the IABC Café is (deliberately) in the public domain. If discussions (and any eventual decisions) affecting the strategic direction of the association are open to all, are we squandering some (collective) competitive intelligence, in the interest of transparency?

Unless, of course, you want to invite the competition (or complementary organizations) to contribute to the discussion, in a “holistic” way, regarding the role(s) of communications- and PR-related associations and the like.

We keep looking for the Holy Grail: measurable connection to business performance, trusted advisor status to the C level, now professional advocacy.

Indeed, IABC should advocate, because that’s where our competition lives — PRSA specifically (I believe in its charter) is an advocacy organization. Other organizations have and will pop up, sometimes around a specific issue, to preach to the uncoverted.

In my mind, advocacy has to be part of the wider strategy — elevating IABC’s perception of value among members, the communication community (including the media) and the business community at large.

Anyone can advocate — the blogosphere is rife with opinion — but the trust associated with such opinions differs widely.

Taking positions and seeking out opportunities to share them is PR, no?

Charles’ post of the Bridgestone situation from five years ago is a worthy lesson. We can’t reinvent ourselves as a lobbying organization for the profession if that causes us to lose focus of our main mission — supporting members. The ideas about special groups to focus on these things are good ones… Let’s go! By the same token, let’s also be sure we’re in good shape about increasing membership value - that in itself will help our advocacy efforts…

Sean Williams

OK, to the point: Advocacy is and will continue to be one of THE cornerstone issues at the chapter level - at least from my humble perspective.

Taking a visible position internationally means that local chapters can take advantage of momentum, offer a local perspective and get coverage locally.

Which in turn supports member morale (hey, that’s MY IABC), member recruitment (who’s this IABC?), employer involvement/support (do my underlings belong that that?), participation (that reminds me - there’s a lunch/tele/whatever today), and overall respect for the profession and the organization.

Advocate/position when needed (Mitch Albom gets a time out - BAD boy!), tell a story when appropriate (guess what? our research foundation found that lorem ipsom dolor), and let the local chapters use that to their advantage.

As for the process, I dunno. Beaurocracy ain’t my thing, but I’m always willing to help. Bottom line - it needs to happen some way, some how.

BTW, I am SO enjoying all of the conversations, even if life gets in the way of my being an active participant more often. Warren, you’re doing a great job.

would rather see our association fighting off the kind of criticism listed above for doing the right thing

Agreed. My intuition tells me that Warren - and the powers that be - are interested too, in view of the fact that Warren linked to this discussion.

Now is the time for all good people to tell IABC what advocacy could look like. New voices welcome. The window of opportunity for change is open.

Provide an immediate statement/response?? Our members might not recognize such a nimble organization! That’s a problem we could live with.

Please refer to the news release archive from 2000.
http://www.iabc.com/info/news/2000/sept.htm

The statement (advocacy, position, et al.) was timely and censure-oriented; it was distributed on a wire service (pro bono).

Surprised? For historical purposes, let me tell about about the response back then:

a) a yawn from most IABC members
b) criticism that IABC should be serving members, not the profession
c) emotional pleas not to partner with other associations on anything
d) feedback that IABC had exposed itself to legal liability
e) threats to resign if IABC dared comment on a member’s company
f) flack that the issue was U.S.-centric, not global
g) concern that the statement was issued in tandem with a third-party conference (purely a timing opportunity)
h) some said nimble = reckless public positions
i) on the other hand, others wanted a much stronger statement
j) the more strident wanted members within those companies banned from IABC

Let me be careful: there is no connection between the response and subsequent policy on advocacy. IABC, as many of you know, had to deal with other serious issues just two months later.

Fast forward to 2005: What next? How? Scope (local issues or global only)?Who? Process? Promotion? Positions? Censure? Policy?

And what hasn’t IABC considered that might come back to haunt it in another five years, as everything seems to do?

Provide an immediate statement/response?? Our members might not recognize such a nimble organization! That’s a problem we could live with.

That being said, few journalists are going to want to talk to someone like the IABC chair until a major issue hits the news. Then, the chair’s comments will obviously reflect on the company/organization that’s in the news. I could see the chair avoiding company bashing unless there’s been a blatant breach of ethics, and instead commenting on best practices, and letting the reader/listener/viewer draw their own conclusions about how it applies to the case being discussed.

Would IABC publicly censure a company that appears to have breached IABC’s code of ethics? I think it would be much easier to make a stand on what companies should do, rather than create an investigative arm to root out offenders.