As an industry, public relations has been a remarkable success story. Growing rapidly through the second half of the 20th century, PR looks set to be a dominant force in media, business and society throughout the 21st century.

The Economist tracked this growth in an article a year ago: Rise of the Iimage Men. PR Man has Conquered the World. He Still isn’t Satisfied.’ It’s an odd use of language for a predominantly female industry, but the piece strikes the right balance between triumphalism and alarm. If PR as an industry has been such a success story, what about PR as a profession?

Was that an awkward clearing of the throat I could hear? Only a few practitioners will share the academic interest in this question.

The best assessment is probably that we’re on a journey towards professionalisation, with PR degrees, professional body membership, professional qualifications, CPD and so on all contributing. At present, these are voluntary – and by no means essential for progress and success.

PR writers Simon Morris and Trevor Goldsworthy probably summed up the majority view in a book chapter heading: Professional, But Never a Profession.

So it’s a struggle for the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) to get its message across. Besides, only one in six of the UK’s estimated 60,000 public relations practitioners have signed up as members.

That struggle has just become a lot harder because the CIPR now faces direct competition. The Public Relations Consultants’ Association (PRCA) was founded in 1969 as a breakaway from the then Institute of Public Relations in order to represent public relations consultancies.

For the next four decades the distinction was clear for those who sought clarity. One was a trade association for consultancy businesses; the other a professional body for individual practitioners.

The distinction has been blurring for some time, but it has now disappeared with the PRCA opening its door to individual members.

This is personal. The PRCA, originally a breakaway, is now staffed (from chief executive Francis Ingham down) by people who themselves used to work at the CIPR.

This matters. We’re a high-profile industry that is often criticised, yet we can’t speak with one clear voice because we have two rival and squabbling representative bodies.

I know there’s a case for pluralism and competition. I know that some want more specialist bodies to represent their work in public affairs, or analyst relations or whatever. But there’s a stronger argument for seeking common interest and agreeing on a common voice. This is the approach taken by the trades unions who have turned away from specialists towards giant collectives such as GMB and Unison.

What should happen? Ideally, we’d have a negotiated merger between the CIPR and the PRCA. I’ve already tentatively proposed Chartered Public Relations Association (CPRA) as a name for a merged body. There’s not much competition out there (I doubt we’d be confused with the Cowboy’s [sic] Professional Rodeo Association though some practitioners will see the similarity).

Failing an agreed merger, I can see only three possible outcomes.

The least likely is that practitioners will seize the opportunity to join both clubs, thus perpetuating the split.

A more likely outcome is that one will grow at the expense of the other. (My membership standing order’s staying with the CIPR).

The most likely outcome, though, is that the majority of practitioners will continue to ignore the professional bodies, to the detriment of the professional project.

Can PR afford this further damage to its reputation?

Further views and opinions on the "war" between the CIPR and the PRCA can be seen here.