Definition of PR Summit Notes — Analysis of Candidate Definitions

Feb. 7, 2012

Definition of Public Relations Summit
Analysis of Candidate Definitions
Webinar

Participating Organizations Participants

Canadian PR Society Jean Valin, Karen Dalton
International Assoc. of Business Communicators John Clemmons, Paige Wesley
Institute for Public Relations Frank Ovaitt
AMEC Barry Leggetter
Global Alliance Dan Tisch
National Assoc. of Govt. Communicators Laura Kirkpatrick
Public Relations Student Society of America Nick Lucido
Public Relations Society of America Gerry Corbett, Rosanna Fiske, Bill Murray,
Arthur Yann, Keith Trivitt, John Elsasser
PRSA Public Relations Defined Task Force Dave Rickey, Sarah Siewert, Deb Silverman

Not in Attendance

Arthur W. Page Society
Chartered Institute of Public Relations
Hispanic Public Relations Association
National Black Public Relations Association
Word of Mouth Marketing Association

Summary Notes

Change in Process
o Because of a division among the partners over whether to include the word
“ethics” in any definition — thus providing for an aspirational vs. practical
definition — the partners decided to present three standard definitions for public
vote, with the option for voters to select an alternate ethics-based version for
each candidate definition.
 Public will still be asked to vote on three separate definitions.
However, upon voting, they will be presented with a second
question asking them if “ethics” should be included in the definition
they selected and presenting them with an alternate, ethics-based
version of the definition they selected.
o Messaging for this:
 “We had divided views regarding the inclusion of the word „ethics‟ within
the definition. Everyone believes that PRSA members practice ethically;

1

however, there was a division over whether it is implicit or needs to be
explicit.”

Values Statement
o CPRS suggested benefit of drafting a “values statement” as a preamble to the
candidate definitions.
 Clearly state the values of each definition as a context of each candidate
definition.
o Need is for each participating organization to provide its own contextual values
statement/preamble in order to make each candidate definition relevant to their
internal and external audiences.
 Suggestion of drafting a preamble to each candidate definition.
o IPR: “We all want a definition of public relations that anyone can understand what
it is that we do.”
 If you have a statement of values and your definition doesn‟t really make
sense before you have a chance to read that statement of values, is it
really worth having such a value statement?
 Focus primarily on the definition and let the values statement come
naturally from the process.
 Need for both (candidate definitions and values statement) but candidate
definitions need to stand on their own.
o PRSA: A “values statement” may confuse the process more than help provide
the profession with a clear sense of three candidate definitions.
 Possibly develop a Phase Two: A values statement that explains what PR
stands for vs. a definition, which informs people of what it is that we do
o Global Alliance: Might too much of an exercise to achieve during this Summit but
would be smart for PRSA to consider producing.
o Group consensus:
 PRSA will develop a values statement for the final definition based off
what principles its members value, and will encourage other organizations
to do so as well.

Deliberation of Candidate Definitions
o Consensus was that the three proposed definitions provide very distinct and
legitimate options for a modern definition of public relations.
o Question regarding whether people will vote for the first candidate definition
because the word “ethics” is included.

o Definition No. 1
 Ethics: If you have to state it, no one will believe it.
Include ethics in the values statement but don‟t include it in the
actual definition.
IABC: There is value to includeing“ethics” in any definition
because it provides people with an understanding of what PR pros
aspire to do through their work.
 Use “collaborating” versus “engaging” (the latter is more of a “buzz word”
and jargon, while the former is more widely understood by the public.
 “Achieve results” is redundant (if PR pros don‟t “achieve results” then they
will not remain a “management function”).

2

 “Stakeholders”: Simpler than “constituencies” but not as simple as
“publics.”
For No. 1: Keep “stakeholders” in to make it distinct from other
candidate definitions.
“Publics” is more easily understood by the layperson.
 Final version:
Normal version:
o “Public relations is the management function of
researching, communicating and collaborating with publics
to build mutually beneficial relationships.”
“Ethics” version:
o “Public relations is the management function of ethically
researching, communicating and collaborating with publics
to build mutually beneficial relationships.”

o Definition No. 2
 Removed word “key” because of its superfluous and jargon-y nature
 “Process”: Denotes PR‟s value as having a strategic beginning, middle
and end.
Also helps to distinguish between three candidate definitions.
Helps people understand that PR is a process, done over time,
and is not solely comprised of media relations and publicity.
Sense of trying to convey the idea of “process” and “time” as it
relates to PR‟s role and value.
 Change from “develops and maintains” mutually beneficial relationships
to “builds mutually beneficial relationships.”
o Final version:
 Normal version:
“Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds
mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their
publics.”
 “Ethics” version:
“Public relations is a strategic, ethical communication process that
builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and
their publics.”

Definition No. 3
o The notion of “engagement” as we try to modernize the definition of public
relations, and understanding that much of our work is done via social media, and
direct engagement with publics.
 Engagement is a process; it‟s one tool that we use but doesn‟t
encompass the totality of our work.
o “Strategic” vs. “shared” goals:
 An organization‟s goals via a PR function are not always the same as the
goals of its publics and customers.
 “Strategic” is more comprehensive
Moved “strategic” in front of “process” to imply public relations‟
strategic management function.

3

 Should “organizations” and “individuals” be included or is there a better
way of phrasing that?
Consensus that “publics” is a better term than “individuals” in
order to make definition more clear to layperson.
o Final version:
 Normal version:
“Public relations is the strategic process of engagement between
organizations and publics to achieve mutual understanding and
realize goals.”
 “Ethics” version:
“Public relations is the strategic, ethical process of engagement
between organizations and publics to achieve mutual
understanding and realize goals.”

Next Steps
PRSA will build an online public voting apparatus based on the final version of each
candidate definition.
PRSA will draft external and internal communications to announce final candidate
definitions and opening of public vote.
o Public vote will take place on PRDefined website (http://prdefinition.prsa.org/)
from Feb. 13-26.
o PRSA asks that all initiative partners help spread word about the public vote to
their members and constituencies.
Partners will be informed of which candidate definition is selected by the public as the
final definition prior to any public announcement.
Final definition will be announced week of Feb. 27.

4

Definition of PR Summit Notes — Analysis of Candidate Definitions

More Related Content

Similar to Definition of PR Summit Notes — Analysis of Candidate Definitions (20)

More from Public Relations Society of America (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Definition of PR Summit Notes — Analysis of Candidate Definitions