If you missed it, PRSA released a new, crowdsourced definition of public relation. For context, here is the previous definition:
“Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.”
Here is the new definition
“Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.”
The reason for the new defintion was to keep pace with the realities of today’s environment. I’m not sure I see much of a difference. There is the emphasis of “Strategic Communications”. I like those words and included them in our company’s name but I don’t think they belong in the definition. PR should exist inside the definition of strategic communications and not the other way around.
There seems to be more of a focus on a win/win, “mutually beneficial relationships”. Reminds me of the old saying, when some tells you its a win/win they mean they won and you lost. I wonder if we found a little “spin” inside the definition.
I also think the definition is oversimplified for what the best of the best PR people do. We don’t just talk our ways to a win/win situation.
I think Edward L. Bernays’s nails the definition of public relations, (from ‘Crystallizing Public Opinion’) ”An applied social science that influences behavior and policy, when communicated effectively, motivates an individual or group to a specific course of action by creating, changing or reinforcing opinions and attitudes. Its ultimate objective is persuasion that results in a certain action which, to succeed, must serve the public interest.”
I like that and have always deferred to it. The objective is clear and path laid out. What I like most is the inclusion of influence. I’ve always said at our root, PR people persuade and influence.
Harold Burson, Chairman of Burson-Marsteller said it best. “We are advocate, and we need to remember that. We are advocates of a particular point of view, our client’s or our employer’s point of view. Ane while we recognize that serving the public interest best serves our client’s interest, we are not journalists. That’s not our job.”
Define it however you like. At the end of the day, if our clients aren’t achieving their objectives, we, PR people, aren’t doing our jobs.
A blog post in progress. As always, please disregard any typos or errors.
Full disclosure, I’m not professionally involved in public relations, strategic communications and I’m not a member of PRSA…but that never seems to stop me from offering an opinion.
I do tend to be skeptical and somewhat cynical. Even without your further commentary, I find both the old and new definitions from PRSA to be dubious. The reason is simple, PR professionals are paid by the organizations they server and explicitly not by “the publics” of those organizations. It is naive at best to believe that professionals in this position have, as their primary goal, the equality or employing organization and publics that “adapt mutually to each other” and “mutually beneficial relationships between” imply. In fact, from my perspective the goal of the PR profession seems to be (more often than not) exactly the opposite of equality. The goal of PR is to support and/or further the predetermined objectives of the employing organization by affecting public perception to optimize the result. Is this “beneficial” to the public? Maybe, maybe not – either way it’s public relations.
This is not an attack on PR. There are lots of professional roles where this sort of party alignment is required. If you’re going to court, do you hire an attorney who’s goal is “mutual benefit” between you and the party you are suing or is suing you? Do you hire an accountant who’s priority is to ensure that the IRS is given their fair share? If you have cancer do you pick the oncologist who espouses that “cancer has feelings too”? Of course not.
A common public perception of PR is that they go too far in over representing their clients’s interests. In other words, they lie. (I think PR folks prefer the term “spin”.) Often times these lies are so egregious they are laughable. I think it’s this perception that the PRSA is trying to counter with their kumbia definition of PR, which ironically illustrates exactly the type of overstatement that causes the public to roll their eyes in disgust. Let me get this straight, you get paid by party A to make sure things are mutually beneficial for party B? Right.
By contrast, the Bernays’s quote is a much more accurate representation of what PR professionals actually do. Although I’m still skeptical of the ending phrase “must serve the public interest.” By this standard, can the folks working for tobacco companies be considered to be “public relations professionals”? As a PR pro, when you’re client does something heinous or socially reprehensible and it’s your job to minimize the damage, are you serving the public interest? Justify all you want, but the answer is not always yes. So is this still public relations?
I’m not saying public relations professionals are evil liars. They’re not. And I understand the compulsion to believe that your influential voice is always on the side of righteousness, but the reality of the profession is that sometime it’s not. And if you can’t live with that, you should probably think about a different line of work.
Love,
Matt
Dear Matt, you are wrong.
Okay, seriously, we’ve had this conversation before and I agree with your point (I just like saying you are wrong). Two caveats to that statement. First, I think the cancer analogy was a bit over the line. You had me on the first two but would argue (and win) that the fight against cancer is a whole different realm.
Also, you say, “I think PR folks prefer the term spin”. We never speak that word which never shall be spoken simply because you are right. Spinning is just an advertisers way to say lying. Good PR folks never lie and those that do aren’t PR folks.
Let’s see, regarding your other points: agree, agree, kinda agree, yeah I see what you are saying, agree, agree, yes, for the most part and kinda agree.
hmmm, “Love Matt”? Are you getting soft for me or is that sarcasm?
As always, great to see you here. Stop by again soon.
You surprised me! I was fully prepared to dislike this post before I read it, just because of the headline. I love Bernays’s definition and think recent variations pale greatly in comparison. Not everything needs to be presented as a soundbite, and we should always be mindful of the importance of serving the public good. We should crowdsource that part right back in there.
Rob, thanks for the feedback and glad you enjoyed the post. Agree with both your points – although the concept of what is truly for the public’s good is always debatable.