Mount Royal University, Michigan State University

Study of PR Writing by Entry-level Practitioners Reveals Significant

Supervisor Dissatisfaction

Jeremy Berry, APR, Dr. Richard Cole, Dr. Larry Hembroff

This study was funded by Mount Royal University’s

Faculty of Communication Studies, Michigan State

University’s Department of Advertising, Public

Relations and Retailing and the Communications +

Public Relations Foundation

INTRODUCTION

Background &Significance

Most PR practitioners and educators agree that

writing is an essential skill for a public relations

professional. Unfortunately, writing is one of

the skills employers are often complaining

about. Much of the evidence for this is

anecdotal - we set out to change that by

collecting data from across the country and

making comparisons to similar data collected in

the US (Cole, Hembroff& Corner, 2009)

Purpose

To provide educators and practitioners

real data related to entry-level writing –

data which will serve as a baseline moving

forward.

Specific Aims

To collect meaningful data related to

entry-level writing and start a discussion

about writing for the profession.

SUBJECTS

We had five research questions,

four of which were specific to

writing skills. In almost all cases,

when comparing the Canadian data

to that of the US, there was little or

no difference*.

Sample

The CPRS forwarded an introductory memo

from the principal investigators to 1542 CPRS

members (6700 in US study). This effort yielded

109 (848 in the US sample conducted) completed

questionnaires producing a crude response rate of

7% (US response rate was 13%).

METHODS

We included questions to examine skill

components of PR writers, and to determine

whether senior practitioners perceive decline or

improvement of the preparation of entry-level

professionals over time, and whether PR writing

tasks are increasing in variety and complexity.

In most cases, respondents were asked to respond

to questions on a standard Likert-type scale

ranging from a score of one (for the lowest level)

to five (for the highest), or on a “yes, no, don’t

know” format for a series of questions.

Generally, we use percentages to report findings.

DISCUSSION

Conclusions

This comparative descriptive study

confirms the largely negative and

nearly identical impressions of

Canadian and US public relations

supervisors of their perception of

the writing competency of their

junior level colleagues. These

negative impressions should be

cause for alarm to both the North

American public relations industry

and to the academic institutions that

are being increasingly relied upon to

supply trained practitioners.

Limitations

We made no attempt to reveal and explore the root

causes of this majority negative impression of seasoned

PR professionals. Speculation about this condition in

reaction to the initial release of the US only data ranged

from the notion that as PR is becoming increasingly

sophisticated, fewer journalists are making the

transition into the practice.

Another notion begging for further study, and also

noted in the American study, suggests that the current

generation of entry-level PR practitioners have been

raised in a generation in which television, Internet,

texting and video games have been substituted for

reading.

RESULTS

Setting &Recruitment

Working with the CPRS national office, we issued

a survey to all members, excluding educators,

students and retirees. We excluded these groups

because we wanted to focus on people currently

working in public relations.

Table 4. Average GPA* given by Canadian and US respondents to new graduates entering PR field for four writing skills, overall and

by experience in PR field

US Respondents Canadian Respondents

Writing Skill All Respon-

dents

5 Years in

Field or Less

Supervisor with 11+

Years in Field

All Respon-

dents

5 Years in Field

or Less

Supervisors with 11+

Years in Field

Use of proper

grammar

1.96 2.49 1.82 1.82 2.06 1.68

Correct spelling

and punctuation

2.01 2.55 1.84 1.83 2.38 1.63

Ability to

organize ideas

1.95 2.4 1.78 1.94 2.56 1.77

Use of

Associated

Press (CP) or

other style

guidelines

1.71 2.17 1.55 1.79 2.56 1.61

*Letter grades A to E/F converted to numeric grade points 4.0 – 0.0

Table 2. Mean rating(out of five) of capability to produce clean, final copy the first time seen for various

types of writing by experience in the field

All Respondents

Respondents with < 5 Years in

Field

Supervisors with 11+ Years in

the Field

Type of

Writing Task US Canada US Canada US Canada

Web Site

Content2.87 2.86 3.15 3. 2.74 2.70

Business

Letters/Intern

al

Memoranda

2.59 2.50 2.96 3.27 2.46 2.25

Newsletters/A

nnual Reports2.56 2.56 2.90 3.27 2.42 2.42

Fundraising

Appeals/Prop

osals

2.28 2.42 2.58 3.21 2.15 2.26

Blogging/Oth

er Social

Media

3.19 3.18 3.51 3.53 3.08 3.02

Conversationa

l E-mail3.17 3.12 3.53 3.53 3.03 2.88

Press

Releases/Bac

kgrounders

2.73 2.58 3.09 3.27 2.61 2.41

We asked respondents to rate

entry-level writing capability

on a scale from 1 to 5 with the

number 1 being “incapable”

and 5 being “very capable.

Table 2 (right, as reported in

the study) shows the mean

capability ratings respondents

gave new entry-level

employees for each of the

seven types of writing tasks.

Table 4 (below, as reported in the study) shows a significant

difference between how entry-level employees rate their

writing and how their supervisors rate their writing. In both

the US and Canada it appears entry-level PR writers

believe they are better writers than they are.

Table 6.

Percentage distribution of responses and mean response to opinion questions about entry-level

practitioners: US and Canadian respondents

Percent of Respondents Who . . .

Question about Entry-Level

Writers

Strongl

y

Disagre

e 1 2 3 4

Strongly

Agree

5 n=

Mean

Respon

se

US Respon-

dents

They are good

writers11.2% 30.0% 45.1% 12.3% 1.4% 832 2.63

The variety of

writing tasks is

increasing

1.8% 5.1% 16.5% 43.1% 33.5% 836 4.01

The complexity

of writing tasks

is increasing

4.2% 14.7% 25.2% 39.1% 16.8% 834 3.50

Entry-level

professionals are

better prepared

each year

14.2% 34.7% 41.9% 8.2% 1.0% 825 2.47

I am reducing

my expectations

of writing skills

10.2% 16.9% 25.7% 31.3% 15.9% 836 3.26

Canadian

Respon-dents

They are good

writers7.5% 34.6% 39.3% 16.8% 1.9% 107 2.71

The variety of

writing tasks is

increasing

2.8% 9.2% 14.7% 47.7% 25.7% 109 3.84

The complexity

of writing tasks

is increasing

5.5% 12.8% 34.9% 34.9% 11.9% 109 3.35

Entry-level

professionals are

better prepared

each year

15.2% 33.3% 39.0% 10.5% 1.9% 105 2.50

I am reducing

my expectations

of writing skills

9.3% 13.0% 24.1% 29.6% 24.1% 108 3.46

Table 6 from our study (right) shows the

percentage distribution of responses and the

mean response to five opinion questions.

Canadian respondents generally shared the

same assessments as their US counterparts. In

Canada we found strong overall disagreement

(42.1%) and corresponding weak agreement

(18.7%) with the description of entry-level

professionals as “good writers” and even

stronger disagreement (48.5%) with the

statement that entry-level professionals seem

better prepared, in general, each year. Of

significant interest is the degree to which

practitioners appear to be expressing their

frustration with what they perceive as

declining writing skills among entry-level

practitioners by reducing their expectations of

good writing.

*This presentation reports the writing specific findings of our study. For more details on

the differences we found between the use of PR internships in Canada and the US please

see the inaugural edition of the Journal of Professional Communication (June, 2011)