Getting closer... PRSA unveils three top candidates for new definition
The Public Relations Society (PRSA) announced nearly two months ago an effort to update the formal definition of Public Relations. And today they unveiled the three leading contenders to become the new official definition of what we in PR do at work.
The top three were compiled from more than 600 responses PRSA received, and if you go to the site and click on "read annotations" under each definition, you can get a good idea of why certain words and phrases were used.
My preference is for definition #1: Public relations is the management function of researching, engaging, communicating, and collaborating with stakeholders in an ethical manner to build mutually beneficial relationships and achieve results.
I'm not crazy about the word "stakeholders" in this definition. Perhaps the phrase "various relevant publics" might be better. In the context of, say, marketing or media relations, a consumer may not really be a stakeholder, since he or she might easily have other options when considering a product or service. Thus, there is really no "stake" in what an organization does or says in that case.
Looking at the comments coming in so far, #1 and #2 seem to be getting the most favorable response.
Here's #2: Public relations is a strategic communication process that develops and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their key publics.
To me, #2, has a basic weakness in the words "mutually beneficial relationships." This assumes there is any relationship at all between an organization and a key public, and it also assumes that what the organization wants would be beneficial to that public. Not necessarily so, for reasons similar to the problem with #1, and more.
Definition #3 ("Public relations is the engagement between organizations and individuals to achieve mutual understanding and realize strategic goals.") is too simplistic and, like #2, makes some assumptions regarding "realizing strategic goals." Whose strategic goals? And I hate the word "engagement." It's a buzzword at the moment, but it may be passe in a year. We shouldn't include buzzwords in a definition, or the definition may become obsolete before the ink dries.
The best definition is probably a combination of #1and #2, but taking out some of the vague or inappropriate words or phrases like "stakeholder" or "mutually beneficial relationship."
Any thoughts on what you think would be a good definition of public relations?
I'm not enamored of any but prefer number 2 as it is simplest and free of jargon.
In your first choice "management function" riles. I don't like the words or the intent because it comes from a feeling of inferiority felt by many in PR. Whom does the writer think will initiate and carry through a PR program--the reception staff?
Posted by: Jeanne Byington | January 12, 2012 at 08:04 AM
"PR" has greatly changed in recent years. I have a problem with treating "PR" as some unified whole.
There's no such thing as "corporate PR" any more. Companies ditched the term and the practice decades ago. What used to be press relationships got combined with a laundry list of other activities like community relations, charitable giving, employee relations, executive relations, etc. It's a great excuse for the corporate "communications" people to dodge the press.
Press relations migrated to the agencies where creativity and objectivity reside (just as advertising left the corporations in the 1950s and 60s).
Corporate and institutional people who are supposed to deal with the press are hard to find and hard to reach even if you find their names. Evidence includes the titles of (PR) Seminar which only has a half dozen instances of "PR" among the titles of its nearly 200 blue chip members. The group removed "PR" from its name three years ago. Corporate websites typically have a question box that reporters can fill out and hope for an answer.
A good example of "PR" in institutions is the PR Society itself. The last press conference held by elected officers was in 1993 in Orlando. The Society has very strict control over its press relations activities, not allowing reporters to join the Society nor allowing them access to the quarterly financial reports and annual audit. The formal press policy is that all calls from reporters about the Society must first be cleared by all members and officers with the PR department. http://media.prsa.org/prsamediapolicy/ This year the Society announced that reporters have been banned from covering the Assembly.
The real story of PR is that large special practice areas have been built up in the agencies over the past 20 years and the O'Dwyer Co. is the only one tracking them (healthcare, tech, financial and about nine others). We had 594 such rankings for 2010, a gain of 20%.
The PR Society can't bear to credit us for anything so they talk about "PR Accreditation" in general which is like being accredited in sports. Can anyone be "professional" in baseball, football, hockey, tennis, golf, etc.? The Society several years ago recognized this and started a committee to explore "certification" of specialties. But they would have to deal with the O'Dwyer Co. which has tracked the growth of these specialties for 20+ years. PRS can't bear to say anything good about the O'Dwyer Co. and it appears to have forgotten about "certification."
Jack O'Dwyer
Posted by: Jack O'Dwyer | January 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM
I'm not really crazy about any of these definitions. I suppose my choice of #1 is more about which one I dislike the least.
Although it means making the definition longer, perhaps we should heed Jack O'Dwyer's advice and make mention of the fact that PR can and often does take many different forms and functions, since it's hard to lump IR into the same boat as media relations or employee relations.
I have a feeling we're going to end up with a definition that still falls far short of what PR does and its real role in an organization.
Posted by: David Reich | January 12, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Here's the definition I used in my PR101 classes:
Public Relations is the art of communicating well-defined organizational messages to clearly defined publics by using all available communications arts.
(From there you can enumerate mass media tools, etc. etc., in consultation with clients, execs. etc.)
It's simplistic and doesn't have all that strategic nonsense buzz PR people like to use. After hearing the PRSA's definitions, people will still ask:
Yes, but what do you do.
Posted by: Rocco Sacci | January 12, 2012 at 11:35 PM
I must admit I'm not crazy about any of them, partially because I think they all talk in "PR Talk." One of the key rules of good communication is to not talk in your own industry jargon and make it understandable to those who don't do what you do. I'm not sure any of these will better explain to my friends and family what I do. These definitions seem very theoretical. That being said, I think I like #1 the best of these 3, if that's the choice we have to make.
Posted by: Sherry Goldman (twitter @sherrygoldmanpr) | January 13, 2012 at 10:50 AM
@Sherry: Yes, I think you hit it on the head about what's wrong with these definitions -- they are written in "PR talk" or corporate-speak.
Actually, I like the definition my friend Rocco Sacci used when he taught PR classes at St. John's Univ. some 15 years ago. He gives it in his comment, which is just above yours here.
Posted by: David Reich | January 13, 2012 at 10:55 AM
I concur that the definition hiding behind Door No. 1 probably has the most potential – with some tweaking.
Among the points to consider:
· It really should be “publics (plural) relations.”
· It is a management function. We’re often the conscience of the organization.
· Two-way communication with the various publics is crucial.
· While some things are opportunistic, research is the starting point, followed by evaluation (more research) at the end of an initiative. Don't shoot from the hip.
· In my classes, we spend an entire session on ethics in, with smaller doses throughout the semester. Some mention of ethics should be included.
Posted by: Barry Zusman, PR Professor, LIM College, NYC | January 13, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Thanks Barry. And thanks for helping teach young people the right way to do what we do.
Posted by: David Reich | January 13, 2012 at 12:29 PM
David, the three pr definitions are useless. The definition needs to be short, simple and easy for anyone to understand.
An example...
"Public Relations is a communications craft. It attempts to present its clients in a favorable public light, so that the client's business and personal actions are deemed acceptable by the various publics it comes in contact with during the course of its business and other dealings."
Posted by: Alan Hirsch | January 14, 2012 at 12:48 PM
More from Jack O'Dwyer on the subject. His latest blog post is at:
http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/3857-PR-Society-Struggles-to-Define-PR,-Further-Hurting-Industry.html
Posted by: David Reich | January 16, 2012 at 09:59 AM
The conversation continues, over at MarketingProfs Daily Fix...
http://www.mpdailyfix.com
Posted by: David Reich | January 26, 2012 at 02:18 PM