While US PR practice when it comes to hiring, and working with, PR consultants or PR agencies can be perceived as rather legalistic Australian organisations are probably at the other end of the spectrum – just a tad too loose with their paperwork.
In my experience across Australia and New Zealand too few senior internal PR professionals, or those they report to, are mindful of some of the key business issues that can arise during a relationship between an organisation and a PR consultant or PR agency!
This came to mind this last week while viewing some US PR blog exchanges.
Ironically the questions, exchanges and discussions were about two of the perennial issues that I found arose most frequently during my PR agency tenure i.e.
1) Who owns the media lists and contacts that the PR agency uses?
2) What are the rules around the client hiring a PR agency staffer?
In my experience uncertainty around these two issues is often a consequence of there being no written contract between the client and PR agency, or one that simply doesn’t address key business relationship issues – a topic I have written about previously.
With regard to media lists the issue normally arose either when the client wanted, for whatever reason, to do some media contact that was normally handled by the PR agency. Or alternatively it became an issue when the client was changing PR agencies, or deciding to go completely in-house.
Both scenarios are almost certain to raise the suspicions or hackles of the PR agency. But that’s another topic for another time.
When it comes to protocols , and the legalities, my perspective is that:
1) Normally PR agencies subscribe to media information (most often electronic data bases that are continuously updated). In addition they establish their own media contacts and build media relationships as part of their business which becomes a key part of their ‘tools of trade’.
2) Media lists therefore become the proprietary intellectual property of the agency, with the cost of these services being part of the overhead structure of the PR agency which is recovered as part of the hourly billing structure.
Therefore in my view the client has no right, and the PR agency no obligation, to hand over media lists. However, I believe that it is not unreasonable for a client to ask for, and be supplied with by the PR agency, a list of media with generic contact details (i.e. general email, phone numbers etc).
When it comes to the hiring of PR agency staff by a client the issues are potentially more difficult – for both parties. However, it’s a fact of life and with a bit of forethought it can easily be navigated to the satisfaction of both parties (or without spilling too much blood!).
My standard agency contract always had a clause that prevented either party hiring a staffer from the other (yes, occasionally a PR agency does want to hire someone from a client!).
This stipulated that during the period of the contract and for a period after the contract ended (most commonly six months or a year) neither party was able, without the consent of the other, to engage as an employee or consultant (either directly or indirectly in whatever capacity) any person previously employed by the other.
From the PR agency perspective this clause had the additional purpose of ensuring a key staffer (and our client!) was not poached by another PR agency.
I found that covering this up front in a transparent manner ensured that both client and PR agency knew what the protocols and rules were should this situation arise.
Of course, the real issue is the wording “without the consent of the other”. Clearly where the relationship between client and agency is a strong one both parties will wish to negotiate so that a mutually satisfactory arrangement can be achieved.
To me the fairest way of handling this is for the employing party to pay the other as a minimum the standard commission they would have to pay if they were hiring through an executive recruitment firm.
That at least provides the party losing the staffer (in my experience usually the PR agency) some recompense. And it’s no more than an organisation would have to pay to recruit a PR professional from the marketplace.
In the US they are often even more prescriptive in their contracts. Because the practice is probably more prevalent in the US many of their contracts state that should a client wish to hire a PR agency staffer that they must pay a recruiting fee equal to a percentage (I have seen amounts ranging from 25% to 50%) of the employee’s current annual compensation.
Taking the time at the start of a client-supplier public relations relationship to think through issues that can arise is a worthwhile investment. It’s a shame too few Australian organisations – or PR agencies for that matter – practice it.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
