Charlene Li, one of my favorite social media pundits, gave a speech at the PRSA International Conference this week and then gave a “press conference” to those of us (including me) who were designated “press” for the conference.

Li said that like most analysts, she is in the midst of developing her “outlook” report for 2011, and she gave us a preview in the press conference.

The two big trends Li is watching as the year winds down are:

1. the rise of “social data” and “social search” and
2. our evolving feelings regarding privacy and permissions in social media

On social data, Li is watching to see how all the volumes of data we are generating in social media are used. Marketers and others are quickly realizing that social media users are providing reams of valuabe information about brands, trends, likes and dislikes, but are just now starting to figure out how to gather and analyze it.

On privacy and permissions, Li sees us moving away from protecting our privacy and toward managing the permissions we give web sites and our contacts. She likened the transition to what happened when Caller ID was first introduced. Peoples’ first reaction was that it was an invasion of privacy, but after awhile, as they realized that it had value, it became more about giving people useful information that reduced life’s friction.

This may seem like a nitpicky post, but trust me it’s not. It’s 5pm on the first day of the PRSA International Conference and I’m sitting in the lobby bar blogging on the ‘net, rather than sitting in a session, ironically, on using online tools to do and manage PR programs. My colleague Sandra Fathi was trying to give the preso, but she was stymied by her doggy PC and even doggier wifi access.

That she had wifi access deep in the recesses of the Washington Hilton was remarkable enough, since none of the rest of us in the room had it. She apparently had an access code from one of the people in the room [I'm not making this up].

At the Washington Hilton, the only place with free wifi access is the lobby. As we were waiting for Sandra’s presentation to get on track as she dealt with a frozen computer and balky Internet access, an attendee behind me grumbled, “We paid $1,000 to attend this conference, and they couldn’t give us wifi?”

I bolted from the room [sorry, Sandra] and came up here, logged on and pulled up Sandra’s presentation on SlideShare. I’ll review it when I have a chance and can always ping her if I have a question. I was just getting ready to blast PRSA for not offering free wifi when I saw PRSA CEO William Murray across the room. So I went up to Bill and shared my complaint, and his response was simple: the Hilton wanted $200,000 for free wifi for the four-day conference.

Whaaaat??

It’s true. Bill pointed out the contract with the Hilton had been signed years ago, before ubiquitous wifi became the norm. And the Hilton, for reasons I don’t care to explore, apparently wouldn’t budge given the new realities. So PRSA is between a rock and a hard place. He said that starting next year in Orlando, they were able to negotiate free wifi into the contract and that it should be the norm in future years as well.

Why is this important? Because with the likes of Starbuck and McDonald’s providing free wifi, along with countless other locations, people have come to expect that they will be able to log-on when they want to. They don’t want to have to run to the lobby bar as I did. They don’t want to be offline in a room while someone is talking about Internet tools.

This is not a trend. This is already present reality and a given for the future. I give PRSA a pass on it this year given Murray’s explanation, but going forward, it’s a no-brainer.

The PRSA National Delegate assembly voted down a non-binding resolution today asking the association’s Board to regularly consult the elected delegates on “issues of concern” by submitting them to the  assembly’s electronic discussion group. The vote was 95 for, 118 against.

Unfortunately for PRSA, this vote told me that the association is even more entrenched in its business-as-usual way of doing things than I thought. Further, it told me that a broad cross-section of the association isn’t prepared to embrace the present and future of communications and engagement.

PRSA formally created the “Leadership Assembly” last year as an acknowledgement of the need for broader input into the association’s future role in PR and communications. The Board is supposed to seek advice and counsel from the assembly, as opposed to its prior role of simply doing the legal business of a membership organization. Along those lines, the formal business of the assembly was limited to the first half of the day today, followed by a discussion of the near-term future of the PR industry in the afternoon.

As noted by the advocates of the resolution, the electronic discussion group gives the Board the ability to consult the Leadership Assembly throughout the year, but it didn’t do so. The authors, tech-savvy PR people from Boston and the Bay Area, hoped that the resolution would help move the association in that direction. It didn’t happen.

[2010 PRSA International Conference]

The PRSA Delegate Assembly today voted resoundingly against removing the requirement that potential national board members hold an Accreditation in Public Relations (APR) in order to stand for election. The vote, which required a two-thirds majority, failed to even garner a majority, falling 104-172.

The voted ended a passionate and looong debate this year for and against this change. To summarize, those for the amendment felt that removing the requirement would open board leadership to a much larger pool of candidates, while those against argued that holding an APR demonstrates the necessary commitment to the profession and the society.

I voted for the change, twice actually, as I held a proxy for our chapter’s other vote. I did so at the direction of the PRSA Silicon Valley board, which voted to support the amendment.

What made this debate interesting to me is that it encapsulated many wider issues in the transformation and evolution of the PR industry. From my point of view, those arguing against the amendment (at least those who spoke or wrote publicly) were largely motivated by a desire to slow change, to affirm their support for “the way things are” and to support the APR accreditation as a symbol of PR expertise.

On the other side, those supporting the amendment seemed to be crying out for the organization to modernize, to open its leadership to a wider pool of candidates, and to recognize that “public relations” as a profession and marketing function is rapidly evolving.

In the end, I think the amendment lost because it addressed a narrow issue, the APR requirement, rather than rewriting the entire “minimum requirements” bylaw altogether. In addition to the APR requirement, the minimum requirements still call for potential Board members to have served as a chapter or section board member or, at a minimum, to have been in the profession for 20 years.

As a membership organization, the only *minimum* requirement for board service should be that the person be a PRSA member for a minimum of 2-3 years. Such a low threshold would allow anyone with a demonstrated commitment to the organization to run for office, only barring insurgents seeking for some reason to take over the organization.

Why the bare minimum? Because the nomination and election process is the proper place to vet qualifications for leadership, not the bylaws. The pool should be as wide as possible, thus hopefully turning the election itself into an opportunity to debate and discuss the future of the organization and the profession.

If there’s anyone out there worrying about the business efficacy of this organization, I recommend that you take this vote as a warning sign of a hidebound association that may be too slow to change to meet the needs of tomorrow’s PR and marketing professionals.

[2010 PRSA International Conference]

The PRSA National Delegate Assembly is coming up next month, October 17 in Washington, D.C. I’ll be there representing the Silicon Valley Chapter.

The assembly is a requirement of PRSA’s bylaws, and past assemblies have been mind-numbing affairs in which delegates from around the country were asked to consider and vote on administrative minutiae regarding the business affairs of the group.

In response to voices like this one, the assembly has been modernized, and the preliminary agenda only calls for us to spend the morning dealing with such issues. The afternoon is turned over to a “Town Hall Meeting” on “Defining the role of the public relations professional of the future.” We were asked to solicit input from our chapter on the questions below.

My plan is to post the questions here, solicit your input on any or all of them, and write up my own thoughts in the next few days. So here they are:

• What role will the public relations professional play in 2015? How is this different from their role today?
• What other knowledge, skills and abilities are necessary for success in the future?
• How will knowledge, skills and abilities be impacted by:
  • Social media?
  • Integrated marketing/communications?
  • Globalization?
  • The disintegration of traditional media?
  • The demand for results — focus on measurement and evaluation?
  • Other?
• How will knowledge, skills and abilities differ by:
  • Career stage?
  • Industry?
  • Organizational setting?

The PR industry has typically had a serious East Coast slant, mostly for good reason, and that means the biggest PR events usually happen in New York or Washington. Many of the biggest companies in the world are located in the Northeast Corridor, as is the stock exchange, the capital, and the media industry. Here in the West, we have Silicon Valley and Hollywood, and that’s about all.

For the past couple of years, I’ve been involved with PRSA’s Silicon Valley Chapter, and our big event of the year is “Media Predicts,” a lively dinner, networking opportunity and panel discussion of predictions for next year in technology. It’s on Wednesday, Dec. 2 at the Computer History Museum, and it draws 300 people and dozens of top tech PR agencies and corporate PR departments.

This year, we’ve added two new wrinkles — an opening stand-up comedy monologue by name-brand comic Will Durst, and a “Student Silent Auction” in which top PR students from San Jose State are auctioning themselves off [proceeds to their school's PR program] to be PR interns at agencies or companies.

As my title implies, I think this is turning into the top must-attend event in PR on the West Coast, assuming you have a business interest in technology [and these days, who doesn't?]. It’s a see-and-be-seen opportunity for the tech PR community, which is especially valuable in this Twittering/Facebooking/email world of impersonal communications.

Here’s the list of tech media speakers, followed by a list of the companies who have already signed up to sponsor this event and host tables. For more information, go to the PRSA Silicon Valley page or the registration page.

• Ben Worthen, Wall Street Journal & Digits
• Brad Stone, New York Times & Bits Blog
• Byron Acohido, USA Today, LastWatchDog
• Connie Guglielmo, Bloomberg News
• Matt Marshall, VentureBeat & DEMO
• Om Malik, GigaOM
• Steven Levy, WIRED
• Jim Goldman, CNBC (moderator)
• Duffy Jennings, SFGate (emcee)

Sponsors so far:

Premier Event Sponsor:

• Yahoo

Platinum:

• Microsoft
• SAP

Gold:

• Blanc & Otus
• Market Wire
• Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide
• Trainer Communications
• Weber Shandwick

Bronze:

• Access Communications
• A&R Edelman
• Brunswick
• Dell
• Eastwick
• Fleishman-Hillard
• BusinessWire
• SanDisk
• Voce
• Waggener Edstrom

The PRSA National Delegate Assembly will take place this Saturday in San Diego. I’m a delegate but I can’t make it, so I’m sending a proxy voter. She asked how to vote and I told her she was free to vote as she pleased. But I wanted to go on the record to the industry and urge approval of the main item on the agenda, the revision of PRSA’s bylaws.

PRSA is a national membership organization based in New York. A staff and Board run the organization, but as a membership body, we have to have an annual meeting to conduct certain business, such as bylaw revisions.

Here’s my take on the bylaw revisions — just do them and vote yes! Then move on to the truly weighty and important issues facing our profession, and not dwell on bureaucratic minutiae.

Almost all nonprofits need to revise their bylaws periodically, as the organization and the external world change. Bylaw changes are almost always overdue, because they are a pain to push through. That’s the case here.

I’ve reviewed the changes a couple of times, looking for nefarious consolidations of power or simply bad ideas, and I can’t find them. The revisions appear to me to both modernize the association and streamline decision-making, two worthy objectives.

I took a second close look because there is a faction that has gotten itself extremely worked up about these revisions, but I can’t find any cause for alarm.

What does alarm me, however, are the things PRSA’s national meeting OUGHT to be dealing with, namely:

• The lack of enforceable professional standards of practice
• The lack of clear and low-cost ways of measuring the effectiveness of PR
• The revolutionary changes roiling the media, communications and the PR industry brought on by the Internet, and how to position and support current practitioners and train the next generation

With delegates across the country representing the best and brightest of the profession sitting in one convention room in San Diego, it would be a perfect time to address and work on these issues. But they won’t be on the agenda. And that’s the real shame here.