File this one under ‘I would say that, wouldn’t I’

What do you know, you wait ages for one article about professions trying to hermetically seal their gene pool, and then two come along, practically at once.

In the face of such self-preservation, anybody would think there was a recession going on.

According to an article in PR Week: “…journalists …planning an escape route into PR… are likely to find their options limited as agencies prioritise genuine industry experience.”

On a couple of levels that makes absolute sense. One argument within the article appears to suggest PR companies are wary of journalists who see PR as little more than a meal ticket in difficult times – or at least a life raft away from the sinking media industry.

And quite right too. I had a journalist email me a while ago who said: “I reckon it’s time I put my feet up and sort out a nice fat salary, have you got any jobs going?”

I think he was serious.

So, if the article was about recessions being no time to hire staff who think they can simply spin their wheels while drawing a fat salary then it’s spot on. But that isn’t limited just to former journalists of course. I suspect many PR professionals – even those with “genuine industry experience” – have also been found out by this recession, lest any of us imagine the economy can’t be both an excuse as well as a reason for losing staff.

I also agree PR certainly isn’t for all journalists. The work rate will leave many floundering from day one and the difference in culture and politics won’t always suit deserters from the other side of the fence. So yes, journalists also represent a gamble if the agency hasn't done its homework. (But that's true of all staff again, right?)

However, to address the basic premise, “genuine industry experience” is a slightly worrying term whose understanding owes more to an individual agency’s ambitions and its approach to PR - and the expectations of the clients they've surrounded themselves with as a result - than it does to the fittingness of journalists to work in PR. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the article is correct, I just question, to a degree, the logic upon which it is built.

Journalists – if you find one who can keep up with the pace and not lose heart or focus in the face of a political culture shock – can still add a great deal to any agency aspiring to a value proposition above and beyond press office and admin. Fresh perspective is no luxury, nor is the level of media consultancy or training - both internal and external - that an experienced journalist brings to the table. Likewise they should also bring creativity and pragmatism to the kinds of tactics the PR industry has been peddling in the same way, for too long as a result of the closed gene pool apparently still favoured in some quarters. And then of course there is a new biz 'wow' factor if you get the right journalist who can bring specific industry knowledge, media savvy and some presentation and communication flair.

Sure, if an agency wants somebody to top and tail US copy and hit send on emails to bought-in press lists then a journalist would be a luxury, but so would "genuine industry experience". It probably boils down to the ways in which people react to recession. There are those who say 'we must do what we currently do, but do it better' and those people will look to broaden their gene pool, expand their offering, roll out new services and aggressively target new business. Then there are those who will think 'we must hunker down and see this thing through' and naturally those people won't be hiring journalists any time soon for the above-mentioned reasons.

In that regard, I suspect this article is more about self-preservation, on many levels, and the fact many agencies lack the skills sets and the vision to work out how the right journalist can add real value to their business. Too many still think a former journalist will either be a copy jockey or a luxury to wheel out for meetings and pitches.