We are so close (in this phase) to defining public relations. Thanks to everyone who has taken time and thought to comment and provide insight. As this is my first attempt to garner consensus via a blog (called crowdsourcing, I believe), I’m thrilled with the interactivity. I also thank the silent readers taking this all in who offer a comment on occasion, as well. Everyone is valued and valuable.
As a back story, on this blog there are a series of posts in the last three to four weeks leading to today’s. I hate to repeat myself, but need to so those coming for the first time are aware of what we’re up to. If you’re interested in the prequence (I often coin words), here are some posts (comment scanning is a must to get the true level of conversation) to reference:
(by )
?
A Wrench
Before you see the variations of the working definition peeps have come up with (we’re close on consensus), let me throw out this wrench courtesy of of and , the 50th ranked blog on the (congrats!).
Gini just weighed in a few minutes ago to say:
“I think this is still too intangible and full of jargon. If I sent this to my parents, they’d still have NO IDEA what I do. My six-year-old niece tells people I work on a computer. Perhaps we should start there?”
Let me also share that of provided insight on these definitions suggesting “It’s still too vague, oblique.” (Guess we still have some work to do?)
Jargon-filled PR Definitions?
Public Relations Is:
A strategic discipline responsible for communicating to and with diverse audiences and organization stakeholders in order to build human connections; clarify perceptions; influence and manage reputation, brand and culture in order to better align with business goals.
A strategic, (holistic) discipline aligned to business goals that builds, nurtures, and masters human connections and perception; influences and manages reputation, brand and culture while communicating messages across mediums.
A strategic discipline responsible for communicating messages across mediums to diverse audiences and organization stakeholders with the goal of building, nurturing, and mastering human connections and
perception; influencing and managing reputation, brand and culture in promotion of overall business goals.
A strategic discipline aligned to business goals that builds human connections; influences and manages brand reputation and culture while communicating messages across mediums to diverse stakeholders.
OK, peeps, challenged by Ms. Dietrich, are these words just jargon (there were many comments about “masters” and “mediums”), or can you identify with them in your respective daily lives? Should we just say:
Public relations uses technology to create relationships with everyone, everywhere.
What do you think? That just may be our home-base message on the .
(image credit: swordandthescript.com)
I’m not in the industry. That said, all four definitions start out with “strategic”. It seems to me that if you need to say it so loudly, it may be perceived as posturing. Isn’t it better to just be strategic, rather self apply the label as a child would a fake yoda tattoo?
Great input; I like it. Thank you, Sean.
Still with Gini, thinking on this. One quick thought: old school still sometimes works, so would a phone call or hand-written thank you note be considered using technology? FWIW.
You’re right, probably not. Perhaps the word communicates or shares. And, will go right now to update the reference in today’s post to include your insight from yesterday. Sorry for that lapse, Davina.
No apologies, I’m just scratching my head and thinking .. you can probably see the smoke coming out of my ears, wheels a-turning. 😉
Am feeling it, too! Not sure we can get there from here, but…
PR helps great businesses look and sound as great as they are, so the public doesn’t forget them or forget to buy from them. Strategically :).
Laughing. Now we might be getting somewhere. Thanks!
Leave it to the copywriter :). Seriously, though: for a lay audience, we need to spoon out a little less to chew at once. I agree with Rachel, as I said before, that it’s more of a mission, with several tasks under its umbrella that may not be taken alone as public relations. Do you think we should be referring to the mission or the tasks?
I went back to comments on your mash-up post and have a better idea of the direction. I think to a high school classroom, I would say something that would bring them into it, like this:
PR builds goodwill among businesses, their customers, and the community at large using approaches that make people feel their actions and opinions are valued by the businesses, and the vice versa.
Like, Like.
As I wrote that defn last night (1st one up above), I thought to myself, “Good Lord, this sounds stiff and full of so much jargon, my mother wouldn’t know what I was talking about.” So, yes, I agree, we’re full of it. Here’s another take:
Here’s a real life response when a 6 year old asked me where I worked and what I do:
“I tell stories about people (or businesses).”
For that 6 y.o., that was perceived as story-telling (negative connotation). So I continued:
“No, it’s a real story that the person needs help sharing.”
How?
“The best way I can.” 🙂
Now, of course, that first statement can be perceived as spin. I have been known to say “I make people look good.” Definitely spin-laden.
However, it’s short, sweet and to the point and people get it. The last part simply means via traditional methods, hand written note (thank you Davina), email, talking to audiences, non-traditional, online, you name it, I use it. I match the client to the audience and go where they are, not where I am.
“We match clients to audience and go where they are, not where I am.” I’m getting to the point in this exercise — WHY do we need to tell them what we do? WE know what we do and how! Let’s keep flying under the radar! I kinda like it that way. Thanks for this…
Quite honestly my friends/family/peers don’t really know what I do for a living. Coincidentally, I went to an PR professionals meeting last week where this question came bubbling back into my mind. When you think about the various titles that have become popular like communication specialists, media relations managers, or even just public relations coordinators, it leaves the definition very vague. However, as we turn the corner where the practice of public relations is more about communicating to various audiences, including press, partners, bloggers, end consumer, I think that the PUBLIC has come back into the public relations more so now than ever before.
Feedback?
What we do is so broad; the word “public” is also broad. Shall we define public as “everyone who touches a company and consumes its products and services?”
Nice to see you here, Heidi…thank you.
Jayme, jargon aside, I would also challenge that these definitions don’t… A) Capture the two-way, mutual relationships that PR professionals are responsible to create on behalf of their employers (or clients) and; more importantly B) Capture the fact that publics and stakeholders play a very important part in an organization’s success or failure.
How would I explain this to people who don’t know what PR is? I would say “I help my employer build authentic relationships with all of the people who help them either succeed or fail in business.”
Maybe that’s too simplistic, but I think the average Joe/Jane understands that it takes two to tango, especially in business. 🙂
Cheers,
Beth Harte
@bethharte
I like where you went…”with all of the people who help them either succeed or fail in business.” In many of the comments today, “public” is back and how we define that is helpful in determining what it is we do.
Simple is good…that said, your word “authentic” was discussed in previous posts’ comments, too. We like it as practitioners, but to the mass audience or even clients, they have more challenge understanding that.
Thank you, Beth! (Not sure we’re making progress or getting stuck in the mud, but all the thinking is pushing us somewhere!)
Humans (i.e. the mass audience) intrinsically know what authenticity is. We know when people are authentically good or bad, honest or dishonest, fake or real, sincere or insincere, etc. At least, I hope!
Organizations struggle with being authentic because it forces them to be real… It’s okay to say “we want your money, support, etc.” What’s not okay is to pretend that’s not the end-game. See above point. 🙂
I will be honest with you… I am struggling with why we need to redefine PR when it’s already been defined. Is it because we forget what we’ve learned in college/university? Is it because there are people in PR who don’t have degrees in PR? (Marketing, by the way, is going through this same challenge.) I struggle with it because as a PR professor (adjunct), I teach my students year-after-year what PR is…all semester long. It’s only out in the “real” world where the definition seems to get screwed up or change or challenged. What am I missing? (Maybe that’s a discussion for another day!)
I see your point about “authentic.” We could also consider “transparent?”
As to why we’re doing this at all — at the grassroots level, I’m in touch with many doing PR and not realizing it or understanding the breadth of the profession. Upon looking at the PRSA definition a few weeks ago, I was taken aback at how old it is (30 years) and how confusing it sounds.
Another impetus, simultaneous to my path, was Heidi Cohen’s “31 Public Relations Definitions” blog post (I believe you were included there, as well?). Was fascinating to see that mash-up by people actually “doing” PR.
Thus, why I’m trying to define PR (not even re-define it) for those newcomers, new businesses, and especially those who think they’ve been burned by practitioners.
I like what Patty Swisher just said in comments here…the profession needs to understand, find consensus, and educate everyone, just like you’re doing in class, Beth. For those of us who already know what we do, this is an exercise in futility and a challenge.
As mentioned a few posts ago, not exactly sure the outcome will get us any closer, but I must try. Thanks for your help here.
Transparent might be tricker! Are we talking about glass? 😉
Ah, yes… I was a bit taken back with Heidi’s post (not that she wrote it, but the answers to what PR is). I was the only one who supplied a textbook answer to the question and that’s only because I teach PR (graduate level). Easy to do when you have semesters worth of textbooks at within reach. (Also, I don’t think the PRSA’s definition is that far off, but it is unclear for sure.)
My question about redefining PR wasn’t just about your work here, not at all. I meant in general (as you said, it’s an on-going meme). What is causing so many people to misunderstand what PR is? How have we gotten so far off track (i.e. PR = publicity)? Do we not all learn the same theory in college/university? To Patty’s point, why do we PR professionals misunderstand our own profession? Why do we need to find consensus and when/where did that consensus break down in the first place? Why is re-education necessary if people are degreed in PR?
Apologies! I don’t mean to take up your platform with my own questions.
One last comment… I have a theory that it all breaks down in practice and agencies, clients and employers are the culprits. One well-known example is Edelman’s lead role in the fake Walmart blog. Both Edelman and Walmart played a part failing the PR community at large (by setting a bad example, that is). The question I have is why didn’t anyone raise the white flag before the blog went public. Hmmm. Perhaps I just answered all of my questions? 😉 Maybe theory is not practical and education gets through to the side by employer expectations.
Thank you so much for a great and smart conversation today Jayme!
Very much appreciate your input here, Beth, and questions, as well. As a professor, this must be nauseating to you (this issue). While I was heading down this path spurred by the restaurateur in the Hamptons, seeing Heidi’s post on the 31 flavors of PR sent me on a mission. Couldn’t believe some of them made no sense coming from practitioners.
We’ll see where this shakes out. I’ve never been able to describe what I do to my family; I kind of like it that way, too — a little mysterious!
Have a good rest of your evening!
Jargon filled perhaps. However, I would argue that we are creating the definition of a profession. Not a sales pitch for a 6-year old or for our mothers. Think of the lawyer, architect or accountant and how they define their profession. Are they not going to rely on industry specific language to convey the level of knowledge and expertise that they bring to a problem or challenge? Isn’t that the very reason you hire a “professional” in the first place?
We are not going to use common words that everyone can understand that would surely minimize what we do.
If we wish to undertake a public awareness or positioning campaign THEN would you seek to create general understanding. I think understanding the parameters of what you are trying to achieve will help guide the outcome of the definition.
That aside, another question arises about word choice and connotation. Suggesting that we have to shout that we’re “strategic” is not what I think is implied by the variety of definitions that you have chosen to share. But rather, it suggests the importance that what a PR professional does is not hap-hazard nor willy-nilly but rather a planned approach to solving a problem. With today’s 24/7 media, words quickly become buzz and define moments in time. Words like literally, strategic, and many others I’m sure anyone could create a list suddenly carry a negative connotation – when in fact in the proper use they are the best choice, simply and straightforwardly.
Adding my two cents to the mix…
Patty. This is so helpful in putting me back on track with the core mission. First, as a profession, we agree what we do, how and with whom. Then, we go explain it to our folks. Yes. Thank you.
Per what Beth and Patty shared: I know an ‘industrial engineer’ but kinda don’t know that job ‘means’ or have a clue what the heck he does all day. So I wonder if it’s a “lost in translation” thing? And yes I think out in the real world the definition is getting blurred, truncated i.e. the ‘PR is publicity’ myth. One reason I think we’re looking for ‘better’ definition is so that we can better educate clients, publics, average Joes/Janes what PR really is, how it helps businesses succeed. What is a ‘better’ definition: is it jargon; is it precise yet simple, straightforward yet all-encompassing; fruity, oaky yet balanced? (no wait, that’s wine) I joke as I’m still thinking on this while ITA with Sean: it’s more important to be doing it right that just defining it ‘right.’ FWIW.
OK, you’ve just culminated a 2/3 day of back and forth and summed it up for me. I think, at the end of the day, I want to be happy with a definition of PR I can showcase on my website and blog and share in my presentations and proposals. I don’t have one; that’s the point of this exercise, and in spite of all the incredible input, I honestly believe we could be almost close.
Let’s meet at happy hour for that wine, D, and it’ll flow sure as the river. !
Hi Jayme,
Just catching up on reading your blog now. I like discussion and debate that has been going on! I especially enjoyed reading the exchange between you and Beth. Like Beth, I have a strong theoretical background too. I agree with her. Try as we might, that foundational knowledge sometimes gets pushed to to background in the “real” world. I also like how she highlights two-way communications and how the publics play a role in organization success. These are critical elements that should be included in an explanation.
I am sure I am not the first person to mention this in the comments, but, I don’t entirely agree with the technology aspect of one of the definitions. Though technology is a facilitator of communications, it is not our only vehicle. In fact, though my graduate thesis is seven years old now, I argued just that. Technology is facilitates communication, but doesn’t change the theoretical basis of message, sender, receiver, feedback model.
Also, I know Sean mentioned in his comment he is not in the industry, but I would also concur with using the word strategic in a definition. I have always stressed that communication adds value to an organization. So I think we need the word strategic to add value to a definition, lol! The word strategic is just one of the business words that has an intrinsic meaning and gives weight to a definition or explanation.
What is the next step in this journey?
Cheers,
Danielle
Hi, Danielle. Thanks for coming back and hope your new gig is off to a good start. I tossed that “technology” word out there without too much thought; it definitely spawned some reaction and I agree with all comments to that. I’ve been thinking on “strategic” too, and my view is it’s a necessity because many people do PR tactically without concern for the integrated mix, blend or business goals. That’s why explaining/offering up our strategic approach is critical (IMHO).
Now, the next step in this journey…well, let me see…still noodling on how to encompass much of what went on in this post and still honor the mission. I think I’m going to for two pathways now — one the simple definition for grandma and the other for the profession which is where we began yesterday morning. I’d like to present your (Canada) and PRSA US definitions in the next iteration to show where this mash up is shaking out.
I’m still numb from yesterday; may not see this until Monday! So, stay tuned and will copy you in to the next up. Have a good evening!
I like your last definition the best! We use technology to create relationships with everyone, everywhere. Of course, it still begs the question, what does that mean? But it allows us the opportunity for further discussion and it gets us away from publicity. I also like Beth’s simple answer. The problem is that, even though we are defining the industry, we still have to think about it from a child’s point of view. If an eighth grader doesn’t get it (which is the level the majority of our country understands), we aren’t doing it right.
Except that it doesn’t have to use technology. Public relations can be done simply by working a room the old fashioned way.
Otherwise I agree.
Funny, Bill, I tossed that simple definition out in three seconds flat with no thought process. Technology was in there and didn’t need to be. If you stop by on Tuesday March 29 in the States, then I’ll be addressing this simpler way of describing what it is we do. The comments should be interesting; hope for your input again? So appreciate it here (although I’m tardy responding, and I apologize).
Because you spit on Saturday when I’m trying to have a life, I decided to read this comment and noodle on it for the next iteration in this series. I’m hearing you, but there are two schools of thought. Read Tuesday’s to see where we go next on this journey.
Meanwhile, thanks for sharing your comedienne’ish input, Gin Blossom or is it Commander Gin (absconded from the site of your weekend theatrical stage, Spin Sucks)!
🙂
I have to agree with Gini. Most of this is all jargon, especially since the majority of senior executives in corporate America don’t know what PR is and think it is fluff, IMO. We either manage perception, build relationships and drive results or we can talk to each other and define our industry all day and night. No execs will listen or care.
I admire your efforts to create a tangible definition of PR. But the definitions in your post remind me of my time at a former employer. The CEO was big on creating elevator speeches that employees could share externally to explain the company’s vision and objectives. Only problem…The elevator speeches became so complicated that no one could ever remember them. And the way they were written, if someone had recited one of them, the person who they were talking to would have started laughing because no one talks like that.
And that’s my biggest feedback to you on your definitions above. Besides the last one, which I like best, no one talks like that. And therefore it’s going to be hard for and PR pro to remember and recite that definition and even harder for those he/she is talking with to understand it.
That said, thanks for starting this conversation. It’s one that needs to be had. I’m all for any effort we can make to put PR in a better light among organizational leadership. In my mind, that starts with driving business results.
Thank you for sharing, Mr. Goldsborough! Sorry, not sure whether I can address you by “J,” although I do like that letter for a first name.
You raise good points, and this exercise has taken me through so much thought and commentary about what’s the best way to proceed. I’m not sure there is a smooth answer here, but what I’d like to accomplish with this is to provide my peers (and me) with a PR-savvy definition (one we each understand that encompasses what it is we do).
Then, the peeps like Gini and you can extrapolate the simplest of the simple for Gramma.
But, in honor of your perspective, I’m going to try for that definition Tuesday. Please stay tuned and thanks for being here. I appreciate it!