In the landscape of public relations, two critical issues continue to challenge our profession: the persistent use of Advertising Value Equivalency (AVE) as a measurement metric, and the ongoing debate about licensing PR practitioners.

These seemingly disparate topics are, in fact, closely intertwined, both speaking to the fundamental question of how we define and maintain professional standards in PR. In this post, I’ll explore these issues, their interconnections, and what they mean for the future of our industry

A few days ago, Philippe Borremans published a critique of AVE on LinkedIn, which he describes as a metric that stubbornly persists despite its flaws. Philippe’s article re-states many such critiques over the past two decades, including solid views on the outdated approach of using a metric some describe as “the PR equivalent of using smoke signals in an era of instant messaging.”

We Must Abandon AVE: An Outdated and Flawed Metric

The AVE metric fails to capture the nuanced outcomes of modern PR campaigns. More sophisticated metrics, such as those outlined in the Barcelona Principles version 3, offer a more nuanced approach to measuring PR success.

Philippe says the PR industry needs to abandon AVE and adopt metrics that reflect the complex, relationship-driven nature of PR work. Emphasis should be placed on demonstrating value in a meaningful way that aligns with the goals of modern PR strategies.

However, while we can agree on the shortcomings of AVE, we must also confront a deeper question about our profession’s legitimacy: Should public relations practitioners be licensed? This topic pops up now and again in discussions in the wider community.

Is Licensing PR Practitioners a Path to Legitimacy?

The topic has longevity! In 2007, Heather Yaxley raised this issue, arguing that licensing could protect public interest and elevate our profession’s status. Yet, she also highlighted significant challenges in implementing such regulation effectively. She spoke about how licensing would require practitioners to obtain government-sanctioned approval to operate, similar to other professions like medicine and law. She noted that in many countries where PR is not licensed, specific practices are increasingly regulated, indicating a need for professional standards.

And Heather spoke of the challenges facing professional associations, many of which struggle to represent the profession effectively and implement ethical standards among their members.

It’s interesting to note how Jean Valin, a past chair of the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, spoke on this issue in 2007 in a comment on Heather’s post:

“Licensing as we have been discussing here would be a state sanction of the process used to provide some type of assurance that the public interest is protected. These pieces are inter-related and all aspire to achieve the same objective – a measure of professional ‘stamp of approval’ that this person knows what they are doing and adheres to common standards and ethics.“

Has such a view changed since then? I don’t believe it has.

Now, what about professional development programmes offered by many professional associations? One example I will cite from my own experience is the Accredited Business Communicator (ABC) certification offered to members of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) until 2013, when a new certification programme replaced it. I became an ABC in 1993.

Such programmes combining theoretical knowledge with practical experience and an examination served well as a professional ‘stamp of approval’ as suggested by Jean Valin, backed by organisations with significant credibility and trust.

Could this, along with codes of conduct and ethics, be a credible approach to addressing what we call ‘licensing’?

Measurement and Professional Standards are Interconnected

As we explore these topics, we must consider how they interconnect—how our measurement practices reflect our professional identity and accountability. Are we merely an organisational activity like advertising, or do we aspire to be recognised as a legitimate profession? This discussion is crucial for practitioners and anyone invested in the future of public relations.

The persistent use of AVE and the debate over licensing are symptoms of a more significant issue facing our profession: the struggle to define and maintain professional standards.

While AVE represents an outdated and flawed approach to measuring our work, the licensing debate addresses the fundamental question of who should be able to practice PR and under what conditions. Both issues speak to the need for our industry to establish clear, universally accepted standards of practice and measurement.

The debates surrounding AVE and licensing are more than just academic discussions – they’re about shaping the future of our profession. Whether we choose to embrace new measurement metrics or consider formal licensing, the ultimate goal remains the same: to elevate the status and credibility of public relations as a legitimate, respected profession.

As practitioners, it’s our responsibility to engage with these issues, challenge outdated practices, and work towards a more robust, accountable future for PR. What steps will you take to contribute to this evolution?

Related Reading:

• Is AVE (advertising value equivalency) a reliable success metric? (Konstantina Slaveykova, 16 October 2023)
• Can we finally ditch AVE in PR please? (29 March 2023)
• The end of AVE in PR? (22 May 2017)
• Why AVEs Persist as a Metric—and What to Do About It (Katie Paine, 29 February 2016)

(Photo at top by Denys Nevozhai on Unsplash.)