Redefining Public Relations: continued...again

The Public Relations Society's (PRSA) search for a new definition of Public Relations seems to be nearing the final stages.

I wrote here earlier about the effort and the first take at possible definitions.   I and many others felt those earlier proposed definitions missed the mark, for a variety of reasons. 

PRSA took the comments that came in and now they've put up three variations for consideration.

They are:

• Public relations is the management function of researching, communicating and collaborating with publics to build mutually beneficial relationships.
• Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.
• Public relations is the strategic process of engagement between organizations and publics to achieve mutual understanding and realize goals.

Of these, my choice is the first. 

My only concern with this is the phrase "mutually beneficial relationships."  Sometimes, the goals of an organization simply may not be something that’s beneficial to others, but a role of PR is to at least create some understanding, possibly in the hope that understanding may change or blunt opposition or criticism.  And in the case of marketing PR, the goal may simply be to create interest in or desire to purchase a product or service.  It's beneficial to the seller, but it may not always be beneficial to the consumer.  Consider marketing PR for tobacco products.  Selling the product is beneficial to the sellers, but we know all too well it is not beneficial -- in fact, it's proven to be harmful -- to those who buy and consume it.

So much for "mutually beneficial."

The PRSA site lists these three definitions and invites us to vote for our favorite.  There is no way, however, to suggest alternates.  The way the survey is set up, you vote for one preference and that's pretty much as far as it goes.

Noemi Pollack, writing on the Pollack PR Marketing Group blog "It's all amatter of judgement" also isn't crazy about the "mutually beneficial" thing.  Pollack nicely sums up the difficulty and frustration with trying to define what we in PR do:

"Defining an entire industry is no easy undertaking, especially when it’s one as wide-ranging and often imprecise as that of public relations.  But I would focus on the fact that we are counselors first and foremost — and that our profession is responsible for helping businesses navigate the many avenues of communication that can prove treacherous, protecting a company’s reputation, brands and assets from negative commentary or perceptions; for leading communication strategies that embrace new and expanded audiences; for evaluating economic factors that can impact a company’s business and executing plans to outthink the competition; and for staying ahead of the curve in this digital age.

Actually, it may take a paragraph…"

Well said.

Let's see what PRSA comes up with.

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Rocco Sacci]

I find it interesting that PRSA is trying (again) to define public relations in 25 words or less. Seems to me that this is trivializing and minimizing all the things that go into the practice of the profession. Rather than trying to reduce the scope of public relations to a ditty, maybe PRSA should once (again) conduct a sustained public relations program to the public about what public relations really is suppose to be – and what PRSA has done, does now, and will do to maintain high standards for the profession.

About why PRSA does not hold more of its annual conventions in New York City, the several times it has, the convention has been completely ignored by the media. Not that the convention gets much media coverage wherever it is held.

[Maria Seo]

hmmm, some nice options given by PRSA.