Various blog posts and discussions over the past week or two have started me thinking once again about how many definitions of public relations there are, even—or perhaps even especially—among practitioners.
The same can be said of many fields, although I suspect that in other fields there isn’t quite the radical difference that can be found in the PR field. For example, some PR people, and even some PR firms, define PR as an alternative to advertising: PR involves earned media, advertising involves paid media. By my definition, however, public relations is a process (of building, nurturing and leveraging relationships) and advertising is one tool that can be used in that process.
Similarly, some people see public relations as one of many disciplines in the “marketing mix.” I would argue that public relations is the process of building, nurturing and leveraging relationships with a wide range of publics. Marketing is the subsidiary discipline of building, nurturing and leveraging relationships with one of those publics: the consumer.
(It is my belief that those who define PR as an alternative to advertising, or as an element of the marketing mix are actually talking about media relations, or publicity. The conflation of media relations and public relations is a venal sin.)
In any event, it also occurred to me that the time has come for a clear 21st century definition of public relations—at least as we at The Holmes Report understand it. This is my first, rough draft:
“Public relations is the business of helping organizations create policies, craft messages, and engage in conversations that enhance the relationships between the organization and its key stakeholders in order to maximize the benefits of those relationships to both parties.”
As always, I am happy to entertain other ideas, opinions and arguments. Perhaps we can crowdsource a definition that will bring some clarity to some of these discussions?
No other definition more clearly defines PR than the word itself. Here is my definition: Public Relations is to identify, establish, maintain and improve relationships with publics to help reach the goal of the organization.
Paul, it’s good to know I’m not the only one who gets hung up on definitions. In fact, without trying to put you off it, I go to quite some lengths to define both marketing and PR in my book, The Business of Influence, before mapping out my vision for how these disciplines will evolve in future. Getting to ‘B’ is so much easier if we all agree where ‘A’ is!
Terry Flynn, Fran Gregory and Jean Valin actually set up a wiki to record various definitions of PR and to collaborate on consolidating a new definition for adoption at the Canadian Public Relations Society national board meeting February 2009: “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 ended up gravitating towards the definition presented in the renowned Excellence study: “a management function that focuses on two-way communication and fostering of mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics.”
Not too distant from the CIPR’s definition: “the discipline that looks after reputation, with the aim of earning understanding and support and influencing opinion and behaviour. It is the planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organization and its publics.”
Almost all best practice definitions reference mutuality (my emphases above) and encompass the full gamut of the profession beyond media relations, both notably inadequately addressed by the PRCA’s definition at the time of writing imho. In fact, the PRCA appears to fall into the trap you reference above of comparing PR to advertising.
And wrt marketing, I prefer the definition from the seminal text, Principles of Marketing: “Marketing is the process by which companies create value for customers and build strong customer relationships in order to capture value from customers in return.”
Paul,
I’d venture this as a definition.
——-
Working on behalf of an interested party (the internal or external client), we first listen, research, and plan, then craft and share relevant, effective stories, narrative arcs and conversation-driving content to engage specific and various audiences. We do so in order to: raise awareness; promote greater understanding; attempt to alter perceptions and overcome biases; nurture mutual relationships with stakeholders and customers; build, guard and restore reputations; encourage or discourage certain behaviors; build or enable a community or movement; shape policies; drive business goals.
It’s clear from all of the above that we still can’t define PR in such a way that would cause a CEO to exclaim: “I gotta have those people close to me.” I’m sure this post will come across more harsh than I intend, but these are barely 20th century definitions.
First, the lack of clarity of purpose is our world enemy. We could be describing almost any business function.
Public Relations is to identify, establish, maintain and improve relationships with publics to help reach the goal of the organization. How is this different from the sales department? Marketing? Investor relations?
Second, what has always seemed to be an innate fear of being labeled persuaders leads to words such as “mutual benefit,” “both parties,” etc.
Public relations is the business of helping organizations create policies, craft messages, and engage in conversations that enhance the relationships between the organization and its key stakeholders in order to maximize the benefits of those relationships to both parties. It took me almost 25 years to realize that, as a PR practitioner (note the lack of the silly word “professional,) I was simply a peddler. My job was to sell my company or organization; I could do it honorably, ethically, and legally, but I never met a CEO who’d pay a dollar for communications, or mutually-beneficial relationships.
Third, the continued use of the word communication and, worse two-way communication. Earthworms communicate; cockroaches communicate; even trees communicate. And when one has to rely on two-way communication, it’s an admission that communication hasn’t taken place at all.
…a management function that focuses on two-way communication and fostering of mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics.
We can’t define public relations because, I would argue, the price of entry is so impossibly low that anything and anyone qualifies as a PR practitioner. We’re not a profession because, despite the best efforts of PRSA and a host of others, there are no established business practices essential to being able to function, nor are there tested academic curricula that train students to accomplish what no one else in an organization can.
Every other organizational function can clearly describe what it does, how it accomplishes its goals, and what constitutes success both for people and the organization. Even HR can do that! I always resisted the PRSA accreditation process because, IMHO, the tests are flawed. I wonder how many current PR departments include course work in cognitive psychology, neuro-economics, the power of the unconscious, the end of the Age of Enlightenment and the concept of the rational man and the emergence of the Age of ??? and the concept of the non-rational human being?
While PR folk scramble around trying to understand new technologies, management consultants, advertising agencies, and survey research firms are going beyond that to understand how new science redefines how we take in and process information, form beliefs, judgments, values, and even behavior.
Forget definitions and focus on function.
Phew…sorry for the long-winded blathering. Think it’s a hot button for me?
Mark, your words couldn’t be truer.
Personally, to add to your comment above, the problem i find with PR being defined with keywords like ‘communication’ and ‘conversation’ is that this is just too generic. I wouldn’t want to pay an agency to create conversations, i would hire a writer.
The real value and role for PR for me is – trusted advisers. People with exceptional perception, diplomacy and editorial skills…
I would live to see any definition state that the objective is to enhance the perceived value of the organization versus competitors.
I’m with you, Elliot.
The definition I’ve come up with, in teaching college students, is: the process of using communications to create (and sustain) stakeholders in the success of the organization (or company).
Everything between the organization and its various stakeholders is a values deal.
As you’ve long said, Elliot, the value has to be perceived on both sides of the deal. Pr people are stakeholder perception managers.
And pr is all about value perception.
PR people are stakeholder perception managers.
Pingback: In the Loop News Roundup « MSL Chicago
Pingback: A 21st century definition of PR, revisited | blog.holmesreport.com
Pingback: Define Public Relations - Best Affiliate-Best Affiliate Marketing – Best Affiliate-Best Affiliate Marketing
Pingback: Public Relations Definition | | Best Affiliate-Best Affiliate MarketingBest Affiliate-Best Affiliate Marketing
Pingback: 2011 Review: Top Ten Blogposts | blog.holmesreport.com