And The Winner Is – a New PR Definition
Written by Noemi Pollack on February 15, 2012.
Public Relations, although a century old as a discipline, and one in which businesses spend billions of dollars each year, has been, to date, a most misunderstood and often maligned profession, largely because the public at large is not clear on what public relations actually is, what practitioners actually do and who actually benefits from its services and how.
And that is why I delighted in the fact that the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) engendered a dialogue and debate about what is PR by launching a new campaign to re-define Public Relations last November.
In my blog dated November 22, titled “Re-Defining PR in the 21st Century,” I commented on the timeliness of the re-definition campaign, considering that the last definition was written by PRSA back in 1982 and that, in the ensuing 30 years, a seismic evolution has taken place in the industry. What was largely perceived at its start a century ago as a media relations-based discipline, has evolved to include responsibilities for a complex mix of online and offline stakeholders’ engagement, reputation management, corporate social responsibilities, thought leadership and digital marketing services, among a slew of other communication avenues.
Clearly the 30-year old definition that reads, “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other” sounds a bit lame today. To be fair, PRSA has made two attempts at defining public relations in the past 10 years. But nothing happened past the willingness to try…
So the latest good news is that, after soliciting suggestions from the public, along with public relations professionals, academics and students on its website: prdefinition.prsa.org, using a crowd-sourcing model, followed by an evaluation of over 1,000 submissions along with online comments and blog posts, PRSA will announce a winner on February 27th. All get to vote for the three final definition choices when you Click here to cast your vote, now open from Feb. 13 through Feb. 26.
Whether aptly timed for Awards Season or the timeliness was just happenstance, PR professionals are just as eager to see what will be the final definitive definition as any awards program.
And the “nominations” 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.
What is missing here? Personally, I don’t get this “mutually beneficial relationship” line, which is found in two of the three finalists definition. Nor do I get the third one with its “mutual understanding” part. Nor am I too big a fan of leading a de facto definition with “management function of researching, etc.” However, I do think that “strategic process of engagement between organizations and publics” has merit and is on target.
Look, 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…




Our Tweets


3 Responses to “And The Winner Is – a New PR Definition”
I agree. I’m not crazy about the “mutually beneficial” phrase. Sometimes, the goals of one organization simply may not be something that’s beneficial to others, but the role of PR is to at least create some understanding.
I’m going to see your attempt to narrow the definition to 4 words – “we mind the gap”. This may be a nostalgic attempt to hold on to the 5 years I lived in London, but an apt analogy no less.
In support of our organizations aiming to accomplish some great act or noble feat, who should understand better the gaps that exist between our organizations and the publics attending to us. We mind those gaps – we ‘get’ the problems or issues from all angles, and provide a strategy of behaviors (not merely words) our organizations should take to best address the problems or issues. This will hopefully narrow that gap between us and our publics. Nevertheless we should never lose sight of our obligation to address the gaps, not merely sell our great acts and noble feats.
[...] has a PR problem Maddie Grant: Why can’t we define public relations? Noemi Pollack: And The Winner Is – a New PR Definition Steve Crescenzo: Nailing jelly to the wall (also published in the PRDaily) PR Daily: The role of PR [...]
Leave a Reply