As a PR, I’m not remotely threatened by the damage Borkowski suggests will be wrought on my reputation, or that of my industry, by the characters in Absolutely Fabulous.  The show, arguably a classic of British comedy, is populated by caricatures and scripted around hyper-real situations, told to the audience in a familiar comedic format, set to a laughter track.  What’s more, it’s been part of the television landscape, on and off, for two decades.  Will its appearance really make any difference to how PR and its people are perceived, especially when it’s worth noting that with the greatest will in the world, these new episodes won’t stray more than a few drunken steps from the themes of the original, for fear of disappointing a nostalgia loving audience?

My issue with Borkowski’s viewpoint is twofold.  Firstly, it doesn’t matter what the wider audience thinks about Ab Fab; it’s what our audience thinks.  Are we really suggesting that client budget holders, the channel owners, the industry experts, the media at large, the users of our skills and services, will base their opinion on something that’s been part of the national consciousness for so long?  Anyone can tell I’m not from the Ab Fab mould within the first 30 seconds of meeting me, so what’s the worry?  And secondly, if we’re going to think about changing perceptions, shouldn’t our time and effort be focused on building on the existing stature and value of PR to these aforementioned audiences, so we’re able to secure even larger shares of the budget?  This, to me, should be based on what PR can and does achieve, and has nothing to do with bemoaning the misadventures of an obviously fictional character.

Yes, Lynne Franks received some stick through association, but that also didn’t stop her highlighting her role as the show’s inspiration (in true self-promotional style).  Say what you like about her but Franks has always been a smart PR operator, especially when she recognised the value her association with Ab Fab delivered over any negative connotations, and went on to build a career out of it.

Getting hung up on a TV show which the entire audience knows is nothing more than a fashion-conscious joke seems a little like overreaction, or perhaps it’s simply a way of Borkowski saying something mildly controversial to generate some self-promotion of his own.  I suppose that’s what ‘PR gurus’ are famous for.

Last year James Murdoch launched a really quite amazing attack on the BBC, claiming that “the scope of its activities and ambitions is chilling”. It’s worth reading that back and reminding yourself that this is from the man set to inherit the reigns to one of the world’s most powerful media conglomerates. And now that BSkyB has purchased Virgin Media, we can surely expect to see plenty more anti-BBC rhetoric coming from both camps. BSkyB itself is no stranger itself to concerns over market dominance, so just how much credibility should we, as consumers and license fee payers, attach to these concerns?

As far as BSkyB and Virgin Media are concerned, the BBC is harming competition across several of its platforms. The BBC was arguably the first to realise the huge potential in video-on-demand services, for example, and stole a march on its rivals with the launch of the iPlayer back in 2007. James Murdoch was again quick to voice his concerns, claiming that the iPlayer was launched as a “pre-emptive intervention” aimed at “squashing competitors” in the broadband TV market. Just a few months ago, the BBC came under fresh criticism (again, from James Murdoch) for looking to strike a deal with ITV and Channel 4, amongst others, to share content on the iPlayer platform.

Presumably Mark Thompson hasn’t been holding a gun to anybody’s head during these negotiations, which would theoretically result in more people accessing ITV’s and Channel 4’s content. It’s easy to understand why BSkyB would be concerned over the potential success of such a deal, but isn’t that just the nature of business?

The fact that the BBC is answerable to the BBC Trust gives its competitors the opportunity to play this same debate out in the newspapers which, with their vested interest, are happy to peddle the issue. If it is the job of regulatory bodies such as Ofcom and the BBC Trust to protect the interests of consumers and citizens and to promote competition, surely they should be encouraging the fact that the license fee contributes towards such innovation. And if that makes the wider industry up its game, all the better.

This misunderstanding of the scope of PR runs across TV as well – just think how many people in the world think PR is what Edwina does in Ab Fab, or the spin doctoring in the BBC’s Absolute Power. While it might be part of the job (sometimes) to drink champagne, hold random brainstorms in circular rooms or spend time at long client lunches, nothing as yet has truly encapsulated the work that goes in behind the scenes to these perks or the real scope of the role.

Perhaps it’s because PR is so multidimensional; even in our office the work I do from day to day can vary wildly from what my colleagues are up to. Maybe it’s down to the shifting nature of media relations/ corporate communications/ event management/ client management and the hundred other roles that PR can, and does, accomplish. I just know I still have trouble explaining what my job really entails to my parents when something we have done appears in the paper.  Should PR do a better job on its own coverage?