CIPR plans investment in owned and shared content and new jobs marketplace; ceases relationship with PRWeek

When is it changing its name to PRMonthly?!

Disappointing news. As a new student (as of last month) on the CIPR Advanced Certificate, The current edition is the only copy of PR Week I've received as part of my CIPR membership that is required in order to enrol on the course. From what little experience I have of the publication, I've already found it enormously helpful background reading in supporting the core course texts. It's going be a bit of a stretch to fund an independent subscription on top of the CIPR membership fee and the course fees, but unless there are equally good sources of reliable, free industry information out there, that's probably what I'll end up doing. Shame.

Yes I'm initially disappointed to be losing PR week but on greater reflection, the monthly format didn't work for me, there was way too much agency focus (us poor I house people felt a little left on the shelf), there wasn't a strategic focus (which I would have really valued) and it was often the same old faces in it time and time again. I did enjoy reading it - it was always high quality, engaging content - and I do worry about its future and the future of the team now. But if we get something to replace it a little more bespoke to our needs, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Having only last week applied for CIPR membership after six years in the profession, with access to PR Week being one of the, if not the main, enticements to part with £200 a year, I can't help but feel a little short-changed. Sure, bad timing on my part and I can understand the CIPR's commercial decision around the contract negotiation with Haymarket, but it is disappointing not to see either a reduction in the fee or a well-defined alternative offer in place. As one of the CIPR's newest members, I wonder if they should have asked their membership whether they wanted to see a significant 'investment' in new editorial channels (assuming we're talking more than blogs and e-newsletters here?) or a discount on their membership fee following the removal of one of the benefits they formerly received for it. There's a lot other than an industry magazine and website that I hope to gain from CIPR membership. I await further details on the new editorial and engagement offer with eager anticipation.

I started writing my thoughts down here but it became a long one so I blogged about this as it's a subject close to my heart. My thoughts are here: http://chrisnorton.biz/news/pr-week-is-killed-offi-hope-this-isnt-cipr-suicide/

I don't want all my life spent shackled to a screen. I value a print publication and enjoy reading...and we are not all Kindle kittens. And the fact we got a copy of PRWeek as a part of membership would be seen by many as important. Plus PRWeek was a monthly physical hard-copy reminder of membership. I imagine the CIPR expects a percentage of CIPR members to not renew next time around. And of course some will defect to the PRCA - who will no doubt use this a another chance to skim off membership with a discussion about value for money. Because what DO members see as representing value for money from their membership fees? No matter how much the CIPR talks about the professionalisation of the industry most people working in the sector are not members, nor are likely to become, if they see no particular benefit. As a prime example the CPD scheme is never going to be a motivator for most people who are simply too damned stretched to be able to even think about 60 points worth of development every year, let alone enter these into an online system. So this decision may kick off a wider discussion...it should do.

Happy to hear the CIPR is forging its own path. As an overseas member I haven't seen my copy of PR Week for several years - can't say I've missed either. Much as I enjoy industry gossip and people news, it doesn't deliver the strategic content I'm looking for.

Disappointed to hear PR Week is no longer part of the membership package, that's one of the main reason I'm signed up. Why were members not consulted?

Good move. To be honest as much as I like and want to read PR Week it often sat on my desk, glistening out at me from the cellophane as I never had a chance to even open it. Good mix of more frequent bite size news with a peppering of longer analysis features please.

I am disappointed but I have to say the redesigned monthly PR Week didn't work for me. I echo Avril's comments. My life is too busy to seek out online information, print copy please. I also hope you will take this opportunity to give a greater voice to non-London agencies and in particular the vast army of very small agencies and freelancers who rarely get a look in - both in PR Week and the CIPR.

Thanks for the feedback so far. Just to address your comments one by one… /// Marie - we're looking to roll out investment in owned and shared content as soon as possible in the New Year. There'll be action and meetings with the new Editorial Board before the end of this year… /// Karen - this is just the start of us putting a group together. Drawing in independent voices and opinion is fundamental to what we're looking to develop. If you have any ideas of independent voices who would add value to what we're looking to achieve, please do let me know?... /// Sarah T and Sarah - the deal on the table nearly doubled the cost of the agreement to us, with no guarantee that the print edition would continue to run, i'm happy to go into more detail about the ins and out of the negotiations?... /// Avril - happy to discuss what formats work would for you, and what wouldn't. we strongly believe what we'll produce will add greater value to membership and be more closely aligned with the theme of professionalism in PR, as well as focusing on learning and development... /// David - I'm sure there will be no about turn on this, we're confident in investing in our owned and shared media, as well as looking at existing print/digital titles that will add value to membership... /// If any of you do have questions, ideas or further feedback drop me a line at andrewr@cipr.co.uk or tweet me @AJMROSS. Thanks again for all of your feedback. Andy

I seem to remember that something similar happened in 2005/6. On that occasion the alternative arrangements turned out to be inadequate and the CIPR ended up going back to PR Week. Are we in danger of making the same mistake again?

Like Sarah I am disappointed to hear that as I think the new monthly format of PR Week has been very successful. I have always thought of this as one of the biggest benefits of my CIPR membership so will now have to consider where I spend my money. Please do not put everything on line, the fact that I can have PR Week with me in a bag or in the car while I'm waiting for children to finish various activities makes it a far more enjoyable read rather than trying to read yet another document on a small screen. (Yes I am late adopter!)

That's a shame, as the other Sarah mentioned the subscription to PR week is really expensive. I greatly enjoyed receiving it and hearing all the industry news.

Oh that's disappointing news. It's over £200 a year to subscribe to PR Week. I would have been willing to pay towards keeping the deal through the CIPR. Is there any chance of reversing this?

All the members of the editorial board are connected with CIPR. Where will the independent voice come from to ensure the new channel provides readers with a rounded perspective?

What will happen from January 2015? Is there an interim transition planned? Thanks