There may be a little way to go before we get a PR 'peasants' revolt' over the content and news agenda of PR Week, but after stating my belief that PR Week was incestuous and too London/big agency-centric, my comments have been supported by a variety of PR professionals. Let's examine the evidence:
The influential PR blogger, Stuart Bruce, commented on my blog:
"I agree with your criticism about PR Week's over reliance on covering big firms. ... They also have a distinct London bias.
It was no[t] always so and ten years ago PR Week was much more balanced and much, much better at covering small firms and the regions."
"I'd like to know why you all find PR Week so useful...is n't it about what other PR cos [sic] are doing, client wins etc?"
And finally... a couple of adulatory letters to PR Business, the new (but so far, highly rated - apart from its website) PR trade magazine, indicate that PR Week may have a fight on its hands. A selected excerpt from the letters' page includes:
"Great work! - How refreshing for the PR industry to have a magazine that covers news and issues of real importance to business ... I cannot be the only PR professional who has tired of reading who is doing what to whom and does not care whether some old pro is thinking of coming back to PR from teaching."
I'll keep my eyes out for any further grassroot murmurings.... Wouldn't it be good if, by starting a debate as to what practitioners really want from their industry magazines, we could help shape the printed press for the better!