Interesting article in PR Week this week reporting on the rejection of a new definition of public relations created by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and based on the views of nearly 1,500 comms people from around the world, including the UK’s Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR).
The new definition goes like this:‘PR is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organisations and their bodies’.
Fairly brief. And rejected by the UK’s Public Relations Consultancy Association (PRCA) with 61% of 108 surveyed PR bosses disagreeing with the statement.
Worth reading the article – and especially the follow-up comments from PRCA chief executive Francis Ingham criticizing the statement, and Keith Trivitt, Associate Director of PRSA who defends their stance across the water.
Not sure this definition moves us on much further than previous definitions, or helps improve everyone’s understanding of what public relations professionals actually DO - something that remains woefully lacking. Does it encapsulate what public relations strives to achieve? Does it go far enough? And who exactly are the 'bodies'? Sounds rather ominous in a CSI way. Do they mean stakeholders?
Would you accept this as a good working definition along with the Americans and their experts from around the world, or reject it in line with the PRCA and UK PR bosses? Perhaps this disagreement really just highlights the cultural differences in how PR is perceived and practiced in different corners of the globe.
It’s always much easier to criticize something than create it yourself. Maybe the PRSA should be congratulated for trying to position (and justify) public relations in a competitive world where communications budgets are shrinking... but it does feel like more of the same, and rather a disappointing outcome from 1,500 comms experts.
What do YOU think?
This is an interesting debate and one worthy of closer scrutiny. I read an excellent review of the definition by Harold Burson earlier today, you can read his article here, http://www.burson-marsteller.com/Innovation_and_insights/blogs_and_podcasts/harold_burson_blog/default.aspx, in which he explains that the crowd-sourced definition as well as not being full representative of the US PR industry, also misses the point of public relations. On this point I agree with him. He argues that the definition doesn't take into account the role of behaviour in public relations; the gatekeeper role of public relations presupposes that PR people not only seek to persuade external stakeholders to change their behaviour or opinions, but also to encourage internal corporate audiences to change their behaviour too. It is, he argues, fundamental to the PRO's public interest role that they act to question corporate behaviour. It is, as I have argued many times in the past few years, fundamental to any claims to professionalism that the practice might have as well.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting debate and one which is undoubtedly set to run and run!
Since I wrote this earlier, I have been contacted by Judy Gombita, a US PR professional and author of www.prconversations.com. She alerted me to the following prezi which explains how the definition was arrived at: http://prezi.com/ws5w8-jf8fhc/public-relations-defined/. It is useful reading although still doesn't fully explain the differences in opinion between the UK and the US on this one, nor does it address the lack of recognition of the role of persuasion. Is the reinforcing of Grunig's definition a validation of the original concept or rather is it a result of almost 30 years of education and practitioners being taught this definition?
ReplyDelete