Do Public Relations Professionals Even Know What PR Is?
I was originally going to write a post about a business owner who has recently written two blog posts in the New York Times about what is wrong with PR (You know who I am referring to. If not, click through the some of the links included in this post to find out. I do not want to give him anymore “publicity”).
I promised Kellye Crane that I would write a post about what’s wrong with said person’s ideas of PR, but then I read a post by Heidi Cohen, 31 Public Relations Definitions, and was once again reminded that there is a larger issue within our industry.
It is not the first time we will be having this conversation, nor will it be the last. Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson discussed the issue of defining PR in regards to the relationship between PR marketing back in January 2010. (If you haven’t listened to this podcast, I promise it will be worth your time. Included in the debate is Shel Holtz, Neville Hobson, Valeria Maltoni, Bill Sledzik, Deirdre Breakenridge, Mitch Joel and me.)
What The Heck Is PR?
31 Definitions. Really! 31.
Does anyone else see anything wrong with that?
Heidi asked me to send her my definition of PR, but didn’t exactly say how it would be used (now I know why!). Trying to be a diligent PR professional, I did what I always do—I referred to my collection of PR textbooks that I have accumulated throughout the years to see how they had defined PR within their pages. I also referred to the books my students are currently using this semester for our “Issues in PR” class (does anyone else see the irony?).
Here’s what I shared:
“Public relations is a management function that establishes and maintains two-way, mutual relationships and communications between an organization and the publics and stakeholders (i.e. those who have a stake, such as employees, shareholders, etc.) that often determine their success or failure. PR management includes on-going research, analysis, planning, and evaluation in order to understand, develop and nurture strategic relationships. Areas of PR specialization include Investor Relations, Lobbying, Public Affairs (Government & Community), Publicity & Media/Blogger Relations, Employee Relations, International Relations and Crisis Management. Often, PR and Publicity are used synonymously, which leads to a misunderstanding of the field of PR.”
Since this definition was culled from PR textbooks, does it make it the most correct or does it make it the least correct given that theory and reality aren’t always the same? Is it okay to provide a definition of PR based on one’s own opinion and experience?
PR is Publicity, Right?
When I read the 31 definitions, I did a mental check for each: PR or Publicity. It seemed that the publicity checks added up rather quickly. Are we caught up publicity spin? If so, why have we allowed it to happen? Is it because it is what our employers and clients want? Is there less perceived value in establishing and maintaining mutual relationships and on-going research and planning?
A Call to Arms
I don’t know about you, but I think it’s time to take back public relations. If we do not, there will be an on-going misperception of what “real” public relations is as a management function and more people will have a legitimate reason to ask “what is wrong with PR?”
If we can’t answer that question among ourselves, who will answer it for us? I am not so sure I am willing to accept that answer.
[Image source: Jaxxshirts.com]
Even More Goodness! Related Posts:
Tags: 11 Responses to “Do Public Relations Professionals Even Know What PR Is?”
The Harte of Marketing by Beth Harte is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.theharteofmarketing.com. [If you have a question about what you can use from this blog, click on the above Creative Commons link to learn more.]
I don’t mind so much that PR has an identity/perception problem.
Labels and definitions are shortcuts. We create them to more speedily explain to others what we do, and others create them to more speedily interpret what (they think) we do.
Shortcuts are necessarily imprecise, insufficient, and…messy.
But isn’t the cure to that messiness to engage in conversation? To unzip the shortcuts of label and definition? Yes, it takes time, and there’s already not enough of that to go around. But if someone doesn’t want to take them time to understand what I will and won’t do for them, do I really want them as a client?
Let others worry about definitions, I say. I’ll focus on results. And ice cream. Everybody loves ice cream.
Scott Hepburn recently posted..ScottHepburn- @leaphart3 Thanks- Wade You guys plan on doing anything with sponsor activation- sales- etc via location-based check-in apps
For more than 20 years I have used this definition, which I *think* still holds up today: “Public relations is the social science of opinion influence.” That is the essence. The problem with most definitions is they get all tangled up in “how” do you do it, or punch lists. But a definition should be about the “what.”
As a tech guy I understand and respect it when “real” scientists like the late Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman take the view that the social sciences are not “science,” because we can’t repeat our experiments to produce the exact same outcome each time. But my reply to Dr. Feynman, if I could give it, would be twofold. First, to say simply “that just means it’s early days and we’ve got a lot of work to do.” Second, I would say, “welcome to the human race, where to our great enjoyment, behavior is pretty unpredictable.” I think he would like that answer.
Now please poke holes in my definition, in case it’s worth improving.
I think you make an important point about the definition of public relations in that theory and practice (or reality) are often two very different things. Unfortunately text books cannot (and do not) keep pace with what’s going on in the real world, and as a result, the practice of public relations is typically much further ahead and more advanced than the text books we were taught from. Even the accreditation (APR) process does not take into account current PR practices, so how can we trust everything the text books tell us?
It’s been a while since I’ve sat down and had to define what PR is (despite the fact I live and breathe it every day of my life), but I would say that some of the areas of specialization that you (or your text book) identify as being part of PR (in particular Investor Relations and Employee Relations) are in fact their own distinct domain. That’s not to say that they need to operate in a vacuum, because planning and coordination alongside PR is certainly crucial; but as a specialization, I don’t believe they should fall into the PR domain.
Now back to thinking about the ‘real’ definition of PR…
Steve — that’s an awfully impersonal, clinical definition. I thought marketers were the ones who were supposed to be impersonal? (Thanks for letting me comment on your blog Beth!
)
In all seriousness, Beth’s definition uses words like “relationships,” “nurturing,” and “communications.” There is still a good bit of strategy which requires a logical approach, but the root is those warmer and more personable goals — important because of the overfocus on publicity, which has earned PR a “cold” reputation anyway because of all those mass automated pitches!
Christa M. Miller recently posted..Guest post- Lessons for PR pros
Beth,
For the past few years I’ve started every class I’ve taught at NYU’s School of Continuing and Professional Studies with the following definition of public relations, which is 98% the same as your first sentence:
“Public relations is a management function that establishes and maintains two-way, mutual relationships and communications between an organization and the publics and stakeholders that can have an impact on that organization’s success–or failure.”
I think that was true before social media, now in the era of social media, and I trust, into the future.
Some of the “definitions” in the other blogger’s 31 Definitions post seem less like definitions and more riffs on or about PR. I wonder if she asked them all “What is your definition of PR”?
Nothing wrong with textbook definitions. They’re an excellent jumping-off place. And I believe the one you supplied and my similar one make clear PR certainly isn’t merely publicity.
let’s give a customer centric answer: people are getting more information from more different places. so the more we divvy it up, the more they are lumping it together. i’m quite happy to lump all these various ways of talking to people in an authentic and effective fashion as public relations.
asfor the restaurant guy in new york, all he wanted was some attention for his business. he should/could have gotten it. but he did not.
Beth … good one. How did I miss all this PR ranting & raving over the last week? Oh, I forgot. I live in Cincinnati. It’ll be here in 2016.
I run PR for a software company that’s been around since 1968 – with offices all over the world. Of course I’m an oddball (and in Cincinnati to boot) but I think it boils down to 2 words.
PR = People Relations.
That’s it in a nutshell. Coming from a nutbag. Good people relations.
How do you do that?
Share great ideas, info, insights and inspirational stories that will help people in their life of business. In whatever department or business your in. Everyone is in the PR business – even if they don’t report to a PR manager.
Why would you do that – share freely (albeit with the obvious commonsense restricitons)?
For all the typical 31 reasons and more. None of those things work unless you are likable,credible,trusted and … proven. You can attract positive attention and generate sales for your company without have to beg or buy from the incredible shrinking thing called “the media.” You are the media. We are the media. Coin of the realm is us.
Sorta schmarmy — but if you do that all that other stuff falls into place.
Best
Stevo
Steve Kayser recently posted..Through a Glass Darkly – Ode to a Warrior
Hi, Beth! We’ve been exploring this exact conversation on my blog for awhile, and everyone agrees the leaders in the profession need to uphold ethics, professionalism, and credibility while educating the frontlines about the essence of public relations.
The discourse has been nothing but positive; however, we who tweet and blog about this are a small percentage of those who actually give the profession a bad image.
Thanks for keeping this discussion alive, and at one point recently, PRSA invited us to re-define PR. I noted the other day (on the blog) that its definition is 30-years-old; gasp!
Jayme Soulati recently posted..A PR Recap With Thanks
[...] has some good info to share, yet I agree with Beth Harte that 1) all those definitions creates a misperception of PR and 2) too many were publicity-centric. PR is not Publicity is a meme that’s made the [...]
Scott, I like ice cream.
Steve, for me the issue with PR equaling opinion influence is that it reeks of manipulation and propaganda. Perhaps that’s why PR has a reputation for spin?
Jodi, you’ll be happy to know that my text books are up-to-date and include digital and social media, I wouldn’t have selected them otherwise.
And, yes, typically IR and ER are their own departments versus being a part of the PR department. Personally, I think they should because investors and employees are stakeholders and what they do (or don’t) and say can affect public opinion of the organization and its brand. The best quote that brings this home is from my text:
“If your organization’s employees aren’t on your side, it doesn’t matter how good your relationships with other publics are.” -Guth & Marsh
Very true!
Christa, marketers impersonal?!?!
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, PR has become solely publicity and it is cold (and calculating) versus two-way and mutual.
Ken,
Phew! Glad to hear that at least us profs are trying to be unanimous in our definitions of PR. Otherwise we’d have an even larger mess on our hands. I couldn’t agree more, social media is forcing us (both PR and marketing) back to our roots.
Colin, customer-centric…what a novel idea!
The customer-centric approach to PR would definitely not be 100% publicity. It is about two-way, mutual relationships for sure. I truly believe that both the customer and the organization wins if this mindset is adopted. I think the “restaurant guy” was most likely a client from hell who does not understand real PR.
Steve, I couldn’t agree more… People relations. And now those people have names, faces and talk back. Are we prepared for that? Time will tell.
Jayme, I am not so sure that it’s a small percentage of people giving PR a bad name. Often, I only need to look to major PR agencies to know that the cart still isn’t on the track. By that I mean that the mindset is that PR = publicity.
I had a similar experience on Linkedin. In one of the groups, the moderator asked for the definition of “marketing”. I instinctively thought “how stupid”, everyone is going to say the same thing. Well 9 months later and about a gazillion responses later, there was no clear cut definition that emerged. Shows the subjective side of the business I guess. Jim Joseph