Now, finally, we know what we do at work

PRSA announces new crowd-sourced definition of PR

and now the discussion begins...

 

After an effort that goes back several months, the PRSA has announced what it will adopt as the new definition of Public Relations.   The process, to update an old definition that goes back to 1982, tried to be democratic and open by inviting suggestions and comments from all.  PRSA calls it "crowdsourcing." 

The process drew lots of discussion in the PR world, on blogs and in the media.  In fact, Stuart Elliott made it the subject of two of his columns in The New York Times, including today's column announcing the final choice.

More than 900 definitions were submitted to PRSA, which narrowed it down to three finalists.  There was further discussion -- much of it heated -- and a final vote was taken.  The winning definition got almost 45% of the 1,447 votes cast.

And now the discussion -- and debate -- is just beginning in earnest. Jerry Corbett, chairman of PRSA, in fact, acknowledged that in the New York Times story.  It is the "beginning of an ongoing, sustained discussion about what the public relations industry does," he said.

A quick scan of some of the PR chats on Twitter, such as #PRDefined, #PR and #PR20chat, shows the discussion is certainly continuing, with mixed response.  PRSA is, of course, patting itself on the back.  Whether or not they deserve a back pat can be debated, but at least they brought public relations into the sights of the marketing and business world, who hopefully now understand we do a whole lot more than "flackery," party-throwing and hand-holding celebrities.

Like me, many commenters are not thrilled with the final definition, although we're happy to have something a bit more up-to-date that, sort of, describes in very general terms what we do.

The fact is public relations is such a complex and far-reaching practice that probably any definition that's only a single sentence simply can't do it justice.  But it's a start.

Here's the "official" new definition:

"Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.”

I'm not so sure about the phrase "mutually beneficial relationships."  I can think of a number of instances where an organization and its publics may not ever come close to "mutually beneficial."  A case in point:  What could possibly be "mutually beneficial" when a tobacco company is relating to consumers, or especially teenage consumers?

A better phrase would be to borrow from the Canadian Public Relations Society's definition, adopted three years ago. It doesn't call the interaction a "mutually beneficial relationship," but rather a "mutual understanding."  Sometimes, the best we can hope for is at least to have others understand -- even if they don't agree or like  -- what our client or employer is trying to do.

Here's how our friends up north define what we do...

Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communications, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals, and serve the public interest.

I see a problem with the last phrase in the Canadian definition.  It's nice to serve the public interest, but let's be real... sometimes the organizational or corporate interest is not necessarily in the public interest.

If you drop that last phrase, I think there's a pretty reasonable definition of what we do.  It can encompass product publicity, employee relations, investor relations, corporate image and branding, etc.

So finally... we all know what we do.   But, as PRSA's Corbett said, the discussion continues. 

One PR person, Jeremy Pepper in Los Angeles, may have summed it up very well when he wrote on Twitter:

 "PR is the only navel-gazing, hand-wringing discipline.  Marketing and Advertising don't worry like PR pros."

Let's see how the discussion goes.

 

 

 

Comments

[gayle taryn]

i would agree with everything you say here, david, including the Canadian version as a more accurate description of PR minus the public interest part, which often has nothing to do with it. public "awareness," yes. public interest not really.

[Rocco Sacci]

Kudos to our Canadian cohorts, eh.
With your edit, it definitely is much better definition than PRSA's, which is so lame and non-descript, it doesn't deserve acceptance.

[Jeanne Byington]

My first reaction: Let’s forget succinct definitions the length of a tweet and get back to work.

The best thing that's happened, as you point out David, is that PR is front and center in a prominent venue for positive reasons--not because one of us has done something sleazy. What a blessing that PR is being discussed at all. So for that, kudos to PRSA, even if they didn't realize the kind of splash they'd make with their constituents--a contingent of opinionated, undisciplined cats.

[David Reich]

Gayle, Rocco and Jeanne -- Thanks for your comments.
As I just saw someone say on Twitter, "What does this all really matter for us, in the everyday world?"

[Toni Muzi Falconi]

via PR Conversations...

hi david!

as a sworn tobacco consumer (and of course -disclosure- past consultant...) I consider my daily habit as a mutually beneficial one and have no intention to quit, and I am sure that many other hundreds of millions around the globe agree with me.....

As for PRSA I actually had voted for the first definition, but the second suits me as well although I don't like the mutually beneficial either, but because it is mutual and excludes the public interest, which instead is where you disagree with the canadian definition that I instead support as far as the public interest bid is concerned.
So?

As far as I am concerned we now know what we do and let's get on with it...

[David Reich]

Here's a good variation of the PR definition, from Jim Grunig, commenting at PR Conversations...

"Lots of relationships benefit one party more than the other so it's difficult to always get a mutually beneficial relationship. That's where my relationship variable of mutuality of control comes in. A relationship is a good one when each party feels it has enough control over the relationship--not necessarily equal control.

Here is how I would edit it:

"Public relations is a strategic communication process that, when practiced ethically and effectively, builds mutually satisfactory relationships between organizations and their publics."

[Sherry Goldman (twitter @sherrygoldmanpr)]

I applaud everyone for trying to get a definition for public relations, but I"m not sure this 'final one' is going to be much of a help. I don't know that it conveys to prospective clients what we do or can bring to 'their party' and I know it doesn't explain to my family/friends what I do. Oh well -- it's a good first step, albeit one in "PR Speak."

[Bill Huey via PR Conversations]

via PR Conversations...

I would argue that the words “strategic” and “mutually beneficial” (or mutually satisfactory) are, in most cases, mutually exclusive.

Does a military commander use strategy to benefit an enemy? Or just to create the appearance of a benefit? That’s called strategic deception, and a practice that is “as old as governments and militaries” (U.S. Army War College).
Likewise, corporations use strategy for a variety of reasons: to achieve a competitive advantage; to prevent loss of a competitive position; to stave off devastating losses or counter pernicious shifts in the business model.

For example, BP’s recent settlement to avoid a trial is a strategic move. The $7.8 billion settlement will benefit some of the parties injured by the spill (as well as a good number of lawyers who weren’t), but by no means all. In return, BP gets off for less than a quarter of the $200 billion that some experts estimated the company might be forced to pay, and avoids the introduction of evidence that could result in criminal prosecutions after the civil trial was over.

[Elaine_Fogel]

David, we seem to be devoid of decent marketing terms these days. As we embraced technology, some traditional definitions just didn't apply any more.

As much as I welcome newer versions, this one for public relations doesn't quite work. I agree with you that PR is not always "mutually beneficial." In our dreams.

Although my fellow Canucks did one better, the CPRS definition still isn't right. I don't believe that PR achieves "mutual understanding" or is always in the "public interest."

One thing I will add, in which PR specialists may disagree - PR is a communications activity designed to fulfill an organization's overall strategic marketing strategy.

Do you agree?

[David Reich]

Hi Elaine.
Yes, "mutually beneficial" or "in the public interest" are really not accurate descriptions of what PR is about. Those phrases may be true in some cases, but certainly not all, as I and others have pointed out.

Your suggestion of "fulfill an organization's overall strategic marketing strategy" sounds good, but there are cases when that wouldn't be accurate either. Community outreach, for instance, to get neighbors or local government to understand and hopefully accept an organization's plans to, say, expand a facility is not marketing related, although perhaps relevant to an organization's overall operating strategy.

This all shows how difficult it is to define our field in one brief sentence.

[victor]

Unlike the PRSA definition and its process orientation, the CDN definition has its sights set on the end game – managing relationships. Good relationships beget good reputations and powerful brands.

I would add that the thought leaders who carved out the Canadian definition gave PR a future bridge to the professions by referencing 'public interest'. Today's lawyers, accountants and engineers maintain their professional status by paying homage to the public interest, or risk being stripped of their rights and privileges.