Public Relations Defined — Feedback of Candidate Defintions

‘Pub Relat
blic tions Defined’ Can
ndidate D
Definitions
Feedba Analy
ack ysis

The following report represents a synopsis o the public comments, blog posts a other
of and
commentary submitted for the thhree candida definition of public r
ate ns relations. All responses w
were
recorded during the two-week pu
d t ublic comme period (J
ent Jan. 11–23, 2
2012), and hhave been
analyzed in this repo
d ort.

Note: In some cases comments have been b
s broken up in parts to r
nto represent mu ultiple opinio
ons
of the wrriter regardin specific ca
ng andidate def finitions. In t
those cases, the parts of the comme
, ent
referring to a specific candidate d
c definition are included in the analysi of that def
e n is finition, while
e
other par may be li
rts isted elsewh
here in the re
eport.

I. General Ana
G alysis

• Public comme period open from Ja 11–23, 20
P ent an. 012.
• 152 comments received o PRDefinition website in response to candida definitions.
on e e ate
• Overall tone of comments was positiv toward th initiative.
O o s ve he
o Comm menters expr ressed intere in fleshin out the re
est ng easoning beh hind the speecific
wordin of each c
ng candidate de efinition.
o Early on, many co ommenters e expressed ggratitude for having the oopportunity too
public voice thei opinion of each candid
cly ir date definitio indicating the profess
on, g sion
appreeciates the openness and transparen of the initiative.
d ncy
o Appro oximately mid dway throug the two-w
gh week public c comment period, some
comm ments turned negative tow ward the candidate definitions. Som commenters
me
found them either too broad a homogenized or too narrow and strictly defining.
r and o d
• The
T comments revealed a preference for definitio No. 2.
e on
o Many noted that it reflected th most mod
t he dern and releevant definit
tion of public
c
ons, and was the most s
relatio s succinct while also providding for univ
versal
adaptability.
o Sever comment also expre
ral ts essed an appreciation fo the word “
or “strategic” in the
definittion, noting tthat it helps set public re
elations apar from other disciplines.
rt r .
Similar appreciation w seen for the phrase “mutually be
was eneficial
relationshiips.”
• A majority of comments e expressed a desire for th candidate definitions to be more
he e
si
imple, succinct and univ versal.
o Many commenter expressed concern tha whichever definition r
rs d at receives the final
vote will not be sim
w mple enough in its word ding for the c
common “person on the
street” or the CEO to fully und
O derstand.
• Several comm
S menters exp pressed conc cern over the inclusion o the phrase “in an ethic
e of e cal
manner” in de
m efinition No. 1.

1

o As one commente wrote: “I d not see w we need to include ‘i an ethical
er do why in
manner,’ as that implies we w would do otherwise if not included. D other
t Do
professsions includ terms suc as ‘done legally’ or ‘in accordance with existing
de ch n
statutees’? Ethical practice sho ould be a givven.”
o Anoth comment added that “Since [pu
her ter ublic relation professionals] are eth
ns hical,
at leas we should be we don't have to sa that since WE SHOUL BE.”
st d ay LD
o Anoth comment said that including et
her ter thics in any ddefinition “w
wakes doubts s,
that PR could be unethical in the first plac It is thus a mediocre attempt to
P ce.
legitim
mize PR.”
o In genneral, few ca ame to the defense of the inclusion o the word “
of “ethics” in an
ny
definittion.
Several coommenters w wrote their oown versions of a definiti that inclu
s ion uded
the word “ethics” or “e
ethical,” mak king it difficult to draw any definitive
conclusion as to whether the public expresses an appreci
n s iation or disd
dain
for includin “ethics” in a definition of public re
ng n n elations.

2

II. Synopsis of Responses
S s*

* Comme ents are liste in reverse chronological order of when they w
ed e were receive In cases
ed.
where there is repeti ition of comm
ments, the m
most succinc and releva comment has been
ct ant t
published Therefore not all 152 comments received via the PRDefi
d. e, 2 a finition websi are publis
ite shed
in this rep
port.

A. General Com
G mments

My
M personal definition: ‘P
d Public relatio is strateg communi
ons gic ications designed to pro
otect
and enhance the image a reputatio of an organization, in
and on ncluding its p
people, products
es.’ — Eric Boomhower, Jan. 24, 2012
and/or service

nteresting! But the defini
In B itions seem bit inflated. T first par covers m
The rtly market research.
The
T second could be a ce
c ertain type o advertising campaign. And the third could be
of g .
applied to an enlightened sales proce
d ess. I think they need tig
ghtening up. — Marcus
Ferrar, Jan. 24, 2012
2

I notice that the notations on the thre definitions have conflicts, for exam
s ee s mple sometimes
suupporting 'Publics' over "Stakeholde and som
ers' metimes supp porting what seems to be the
t
opposite. Th here are othe seeming inconsistenc
er cies so I won nder whethe any of thes
er se
ca the best definition un the individ
an d ntil dual words c be agree upon. Se
can ed eems the exp
perts
in communica
n ation should grapple with this issue for a while lo
onger. Mayb that's wha is
be at
happening? That would b good. Ver good. — M
T be ry Michael F Ke elly, Jan. 24 2012
4,

We
W are in the business of building br
e ridges. I don't want to qu
uote any of th
hese definitions
if someone as me what I do. To be honest, I us
sks e sually joke a say I ma other people
and ake
amous, whic most peop understa
fa ch ple and. — Trace Cohen, Ja 24, 2012
e an.

Criteria: Any definition of public relations must focus on process, not tact or functions;
C tics
must be prop
m perly aligned with ultimat authority f that proce
te for ess; must sttate the sine qua
e
nons of our society's valu that emp
ues power the prrocess; and must articula the nature of
ate
th process.
he

Proposed De
P efinition: “Pub Relation is a leadership respon
blic ns nsibility that applies strat
tegic
co
ommunicatio to facilitat positive, t
on te transparent, and ethical relations be
etween
organizations and stakeh
s holders.”

— Charles A. Wood, former chairma PRSA Bo
A an, oard of Ethic and Profe
cs ession
Standards Jan. 23, 2
s, 2012 (sent vi email).
ia

Thanks for un
T ndertaking th challenge I like #2 w a bit of # but have difficulty wit
his e! with #3, th
describing wh we do as a "process." Also, if yo are blend
hat s ou ding any of th
hem, I do no
ot

3

se why we need to inclu "in an et
ee n ude thical manne as that im
er," mplies we w
would do
otherwise if not included. Do other pr
n rofessions in
nclude terms such as "do legally" or
s one
"in accordanc with existing statutes" Ethical pr
ce "? ractice shoul be a given — Jeff Da
ld n. avis,
Ja 22, 2012
an. 2

The
T one I use at my job is support marketing and sales by cu
e d ultivating fav
vorable relations
with
w its key publics throug the use o a variety o communic
gh of of cations channels and too ols.
— Carla, Jan. 22, 2012

Who
W is the au udience for tthis new definition? If it's other PR p
professionals I think #1. If
th audience is the public I think it ha to be rele
he c, as evant and in plain Englis
sh...somethinng
easily unders
stood by all. I think #3 accomplishes that. — Be
s elinda, Jan. 2 2012
22,

My
M public rela
ations class put these to a vote yest
o terday, with the majority voting on N 2,
No.
and No. 3 wa the second choice. — Allison, Jan 22, 2012
as n.

Where I'm at with this now Derrida.
W w:

Thus, complete meaning is always "
"T g "differential" and postpon in langu
ned uage; there is
never a moment when meaning is co omplete and total. A sim mple example would consist
e
of looking up a given wor in a dictionary, then proceeding to look up the words foun in
f rd o e nd
th word's de
hat efinition, etc also comp
c., paring with o older dictionaries from d
different perio
ods
in time, and such a proce would never end."
n s ess

In short, PR can't be defined. Neither can any wo be.
n c r ord

Perhaps inste of talking about "def
P ead fining" it, we should talk about "oper
rationalizing" it,
"
as we do with scientific experiments in the social sciences (li psycholo and
h l ike ogy
ociology). Th is, instea of defining what PR is (which is im
so hat ad s mpossible) w define it in a
we
way
w that "exp periments" ca be constructed aroun it, in orde to measure observe,
an nd er e,
ev
valuate its effects, results and outco
e omes. — Eric Bryant, Gn nosis Media Group, Jan. 22,
2012

PR
P is so muc more than what is des
ch n scribed in all three of the
ese. Really? It appears a
? as
hough we ar being forc to define it in on sentence. Is tha the case? If so, it can't be
th re ced e at
done. It just simply can't.
s

I'm not satisfied with any of these def
m finitions. But I will say th definition definitely ne
t he eeds
in
nclude the words "engag
w ging and commmunicating in it. Engagement is a KEY part to PR
g" o
th
hese days... This is why the definitio needs to b redefined in the first p
on be d place. — Le eigh
Fazzina, chai PRSA He
ir, ealth Academ Jan. 22, 2012
my,

4

I'm not too ke on any o these defin
m een of nitions beca
ause they are full of corp
e porate-speak
k,
and none of them really g to the co values of public relations. NONE OF THEM. We
t get ore f
knnow PR is a "manageme function." We get it! We know is about building "mutually
ent
ationships." And we kno its "a strategic commu
beneficial rela ow unication pro ocess."

There's nothing new about this and th language is lifeless. A definition is meant to
T he e
describe, enli
ighten and im
mbue the reader with ins
sight. — Roddger Johnso Jan. 22, 2012
on,

This has been really inter
T resting and w done on pulling toge
well n ether some great ideas and
in
nspiring so much debate
m e.

Personally, I don't think "mutually ben
P erstanding" h a place in a definitio
neficial/unde has on.
Yes, it is best practice bu is a norma
Y t ut ative approac the best o
ch option for de
efining a
profession.

Also, a definit
A tion that rais more questions than answers is in a precarious starting
ses n
position...

What exactly do you mea by mutuality?
W an
C a mutually beneficial in whose e
Can eyes?
Is this type of relationship always des
s f p sirable?
If a practitione is seeking a relations
f er g ship that only benefits on side do th no longe
y ne hey er
work in PR?
w

Will
W any of the above def
e finitions help us separate PR in relat
p e tion to other communica
ation
fu
unctions and describe w
d what we do to people out
o tside of the industry. Sim
mply, No.

Yes
Y have higher order go oals for the p
profession but should a d
definition be about clarit
e ty
and inclusion or vision an morality. Y may no be able to have it all. —
nd You ot
babbleoftongues, Jan. 22 2012
2,

It seems like we have an identity cris if we are d
sis defining pub relations again, all ov
blic ver
again. But tha not my b
at's beef with the definition We are c
ese ns. creative people, and so t that
shhould reflect how we define our wor A definitio is designe to bring c
t rk. on ed clarity, period
d.
B these do not. Unfortu
But unately, thes definitions ooze corpo
se s orate-speak, which neith her
exxplains and enlightens. And that speeaks to a mu deeper problem with our identify
uch h y
crrisis.

Do
D we know what we value? A definition like this should speak to our values and off us
w s fer
a tool to spea to the valu of others This is very personal and at the c
ak ues s. core of building
elationships. I've written a post on m blog, Get Social PR, w
re . my where I try to pinpoint th
o hese
va
alues and cr them into a definition that is 100 corporate
raft o n 0% e-speak free I'd like you
e. ur
co
omments, th houghts and disagreeme ents. — Rod
dger Johnson Jan. 22, 2
n, 2012

5

I am sad to sa but if the 3 definitions is all, th resulted f
ay, ese hat from the crowdsourcing
project, this undertaking i a massive failure and an intellectu offense, as it adds
u is e ual
nothing new to the 500+ definitions th are alrea out there and, even worse, falls
t hat ady e, n s
back to one of the best and most pra
o agmatic defin
nitions: "Pub relation is the
blic s
management of commun
m t nication betw
ween organizzation and its publics.” — Sascha
s
Stoltenow, Ja 22, 2012
S an.

Thanks for all your good work, and w
T wishing you ccontinued su uccess. Whe I first star
en rted
in public relat
n tions, I described what I did, fundam mentally, as " "building rela
ationships w
with
[m organizat
my tion's] variou publics." Hence, "pub
us blic" and "reelations." Th seemed s
hat short
and pointed enough to se
e erve as a firs
st-level answ
wer. I could then quickly add that "th
y his
nvolves using a variety o communic
in g of cation techniques to explain and gain support for
n
what [the organization] do
w oes." Discusssions of eth
hics, techniques and mutual benefits s
coould follow. Of the three currently p
e proposed def finitions, I vote for #2. — Kathryn
Wheeler, Jan 22, 2012
W n.

As
A the 100th comment mmark is being reached, I w
worry that th only voice appear to
he es o
co
ome from Am
merican or m
maybe (...?? Anglo-Sa
??) axon countriees.

Clearly, if this exercise is aimed at a global definition, this is a major issu that
C s ue
oordinators must consid
co der!

Of
O the 4 millio pr profess
on sionals in the world, not more than 7 thousan are North
700 nd
Americans an possibly a
A nd another 300 thousand are from othe Anglo-Sax countries.
er xon

So,
S one out of four profes
o ssionals som
mehow relate to this disc
e cussion whose
co
onsequence are likely t bear also on the othe three.
es to er

Solution?
S

ould be ask commenters to indicate country of o
Maybe one suggestion co
M s origin.

Another would be to urge leaders of a the 67 na
A e all ational assoc
ciations who belong to th
o he
Global Allianc (part of th coalition) to urge thei members to participate (for anyon
G ce his ) ir ne
who
w speaks Italian see here as an ex xample of ye esterday http pi.it/ferpi/novi....
p://www.ferp

I am absolute confident that the org
ely t ganizers really didn't rea
alize the com
mplexity of what
th were going in for wh they dec
hey hen cided to begi the exercise. But now they are in for
in w n
it and they must come to a conclusion.

My
M suggestio Every pro
on: ofession's tra
aditional walls and boun
ndaries are c
collapsing an
nd
ev changing Public relations - being one of the more rece ones - ha many less
ver g. ent as s
cu
ultural and historical ske
h eletons to ge rid of. No one definitio today can encompas all
et on n ss
th facets of our (or any o
he o other) professsion. The cconclusion o the well wo while
of orth

6

ex
xercise (use also for o
eful other professions who a dwelling s
are similar issue could well be:
e)
ra annalistically' asking ours
ather than 'a selves who w are and w
we what we stand for, we
sh
hould focus our collectiv and crowd
ve dsourcing at
ttention on u
understandin monitorin
ng, ng
and advocatin the value we bring to organizatio and socie
ng e o ons ety.
— Toni Muzi Falconi, Ja 15, 2012
an.

I don't know that develop
t ping a new definition for public relatio is particularly desira
ons able.
A others hav stated in this discussion, any def
As ve finition inclus
sive of the w
wide range of f
philosophies possessed a activities performed by practitio
and d oners of our c
craft/profess
sion
must be so ge
m eneral as to be weak an ineffective
nd e.

However, since you are p
H proceeding w this initiative, here is my opinion of the
with s n
ca
andidates:
#1 is overblow #3 suffe from the s
wn; ers simplistic ge
eneralization I mentioned #2 is not m
n d; much
better, but do
oesn't make me wince, a do the oth two. — P
as her Pfanning, Jan 15, 2012
n.

Why
W do none of these 3 p
e potential def
finitions of our PR profes ssion even m
mention the word
"m
marketing"? Still, I like S
Samantha Ba ankey's defin nition, below from Ferris State
w, s
University tha emphasize "clear, ethical and pla
U at es anned" comm munications [“Public
s.
re
elations is a clear, ethica and plann commun
al, ned nication proc
cess coordin
nated by top
management to influence educate, a reinforce targeted publics.”]
m t e, and e

But
B 100% of my clients see PR as a marketing discipline - sh hying away ffrom "marke
eting"
when defining PR is like p
w g physicians d
defining their role withou using the w
r ut words
'm
medicine," "h
healthcare" o "wellness." — Paul Maccabee, Ja 15, 2012
or an.

I can't help writing this, fo
w olks. Can you really hear yourself us
sing these w
words to desc
cribe
what you do? If I describe my job th way over dinner with my family, they'd make me
w ? ed his
pick up the ta
ab.

None of these definitions are what I w
N e would hold u as a callin card for c
up ng cogent, conccise
coommunicatio We're the folks who write in plain English, rig
on. n ght? These definitions s
sound
lik something the compa legal counsel and H vp edited the life out o
ke any HR of.

Why
W not use Merriam-We ebster? I thin it defines PR something like this: Public rela
nk ations
is the busines of getting the public to understand and like a person, com
s ss o mpany or
in
nstitution.
— Bperry, Ja 15, 2012
an. 2

I agree with #2 the most. The first one focuses on task. The last one see
# ems to imply that
y
PR
P just exists as "engage
s ement betwe organiza
een ations". That doesn't des
t scribe strate
egic
fu
unction, but rather a stat of being. — Sarah Go
te oldstein, Jan. 15, 2012

7

Public Relatio is a man
P ons establishes, builds and/o maintains
nagement function that e or
mutually bene
m eficial relatio
onships betw
ween an orgaanization an its publics on whom, its
nd s,
su
uccesses an nd/or failures depend. — Adam Hoy Jan. 15, 20
s y, 012

Public relations is the pra
P actice of sym
mmetrical commmunication on multiple platforms t
n e that
has become an integral p of maint
a part taining the re
eputation of an organiza
ation, through
public engage ement and s strategic management of relationships in a rapid changing
dly
ociety. — Se
so elwyn Boston, Jan. 15, 22012

I appreciate everyone's e
e effort and rea
alize alot of eenergy and thought hav gone into this
ve
process. It ap
ppears that 1
10-12 pre-dis
sposed word were shuffled around into 3 differ
ds d rent
seentences. The redefinitions do not t
T truly start fro scratch a create a simple
om and
definition und
derstood by a non-PR pe erson. A long gstanding prroblem has b
been that noot
ev our mot
ven thers know wwhat we do. In addition, it is important that we are able to de
efine
our jobs to no
on-PR peopl — Branda Jones Bar
le. a rwick, Jan. 13, 2012

8

B. Candidate Definition No 1
C D o.

“P
Public relatio is the ma
ons anagement function of rresearching, engaging, c
communicati ing,
and collabora ating with sta
akeholders in an ethical manner to b
n build mutuall beneficial
ly
elationships and achieve results.”
re e

Comments:
C

I think the firs definition d
st does a good job of incor
d rporating mo parts of w
ost what PR is...
however, a co ombination o all three w
of would be bes There are various fun
st. e nctions
managemen marketing engageme research communic
(m nt, g, ent, h, cating, etc, b there nee
but eds
to be a mutua beneficia relationship between t agency a its publics while being
o ally al the and
ethical at the same time. — Sawyerm Jan. 24, 2012
mm, ,

#1. Too much - over the t - and do not connect with the average person and this
h top oes
definition sho
ould not be o that anyo outside of our profe
one one ession canno understand. I
ot
do not like the word ethic in there as I think it im
e cs s mplies we need to be rem
minded we need
to have ethics or we need to convince others tha we have th
o s d at hem. That ussually backfi
ires.
— Jen Ward, Jan. 23, 20 012

From my poin of view, th most appropriate definition for PR is the first one, since it
nt he R t
encompasses the broad scope of the domain and supports it positioning as a
s e ts
management function. It refers to the audience a 'stakehold
m t e as ders', which is probably t
the
best choice fo the term, being thus in line with th Stockholm Accords a the
or he m and
Barcelona Pr
B rinciples. It a
also emphasizes the role of ethics as well as tha of proper
e s at
esearch, planning and evaluation, w
re which are pre erequisites fo good resu
or ults. — Iulia-
-
Mihaela Matr
M res, Jan. 22, 2012

- "ethical man
nner": This wwakes doubt that PR c
ts, could be uneethical in the first place. I is
It
th a medioc attempt to legitimize PR.
hus cre e
- "mutually be
eneficial rela
ationships": w live in a c
we competitive w
world, right? So forget a
? about
win-win. A fai competitio is the mos beneficial for everybod The team that wins, gets
w ir on st dy. m
th trophy. Th team that looses will improve. What´s your next proposa Calling all
he he t al?
NFL
N games a draw by de efault?
- "achieve res
sults": Come on, you can´t be seriou Everythin we do in a company h
e us. ng has
to achieve res
o sults, and yo know wha The best result PR ca achieve a lasting
ou at: an are
re
elations.
— Sascha St toltenow, Jan 22, 2012
n.

I prefer definition #1 beca
ause unlike t others, it is inclusive of all PR fu
the t e unctions as a
management role: comm
m t munications, f
face-to-face relationship the essen
ps, ntial aspect of
esearch, and the spirit th PR is collaborative a solution oriented not simply reac
re d hat and t ctive.
— Dan Flores Jan. 15, 2
s, 2012

9

I like #1, but would drop "
w "collaboratin from the list. I also pr
ng" refer stakeholders over key
publics. I'm also not sure that "mutua beneficia should be included in the definitio
a e ally al" e n on.
While that can be a great goal on som issues, it often not feasible, especially whe
W t me t's en
th
here are a laarge number of diverse s
r stakeholders involved. — Rgiblin, Ja 15, 2012
s an.

Here's my ad
H daptation of # Public R
#1. Relations ser
rves as an e
ethical mana
agement role to
e
build relations
ships and acchieve positi results among comp
ive panies, organ
nizations,
publics, custoomers and th community. — Brend Jones Barwick, Jan. 1 2012
he da 13,

10

C. Definition No 2
D o.

“P
Public relatio is a strat
ons tegic commuunication pro
ocess that d
develops and maintains
d
mutually bene
m eficial relatio
onships betw
ween organizzations and their key pu
ublics.”

Comments:
C

Between the three, I vote for number 2, but I sug
B e r ggest the following versioon:
Public relations is the stra
P ategic comm munication th develops and mainta
hat s ains mutually
y
beneficial rela
ationships between orga anizations an their publics. 1) All co
nd ommunicatio is
on
a process, tha a given2 Not all public relations efforts are focused on "key" public
at's 2) s cs.
Thank you for heralding t
T this importan discussion — Kelly B
nt n! Byrd, Jan. 24 2012
4,

I like number one and two but proba
o, ably two the b
best. I think the "strategic" part, in
sttrategic com
mmunication is very impo
ortant. — Meegan Bauer, Jan. 24, 2012

My
M vote is for number 2 w a slight amendment — add "eth
r with t hical." While number 1 does
a great job of detailing the actions tha public rela
f at ations perfor
rms, it is too specific for a
general audieence. High-le evel and jarg
gon-free — tthat's #2. — Erin, Jan. 2 2012
23,

I really like De
efinition 2 be
ecause it uses the term 'strategic an 'communi
nd ication'. Tho
ose
tw terms rea encompa what PR is all about I also enjo
wo ally ass R t. oyed the term 'key public
m cs'
ra
ather than 'stakeholders' which was used in Def finition 1. I w
would like to s a broader
see
te for 'publics' rather th just limit
erm hen ting it to key publics. As I learned in my PR 312
cllass, sometimes there a publics w are not in your targe audience b have the
are who et but e
potential to beecome key p publics.

I like the 2. de
efinition. But I would add "between A
t d AND INSIDE organizatio and thei key
E ons ir
publics." For companies t inside co
the ommunicatio is as vital as talking to your audie
on o ence
and public. And Public Re
A elations mus focus on b
st both aspects of the communication
s
processes. — Alexander Maasik, Jan 22, 2012
n.

I think numbe two is the best there; I would add something t it along th lines of
er to he
participation from, and e
"p engagement with the org pushing the effort" so tha
ganizations p at
th
hose mutually beneficial relationship may obtai purpose in
ps in nstead of be
eing used as a
s
fa
alse insight toward the p
t public themseelves. — Jan. 22, 2012

I think the sec
cond definition is the best out of all t
three. I think it's the bes choice
k st
because of th certain vo
he ocabulary wo ords selected. The words "strategic" "process",
",
mutually ben
"m ganizations" and "key pu
neficial", "org ublics", combbined all dem monstrate th
he
co definition of public re
ore n elations. In m own word I think PR is a proces in which a
my ds R ss
coompany wor with an a
rks agency to ga a win-win solution. They must als work with the
ain n so h
ke publics of the company to get the best applic
ey e cable data fo the evolvin needs of the
or ng
coompany. — Longakerka ayla, Jan. 22 2012
2,

11

Number Two looks best. In Number o
N one, I don't like the ethic part beca
cal ause since w
we
are ethical, at least we sh
t hould be, we don't have to say that s
e since WE SH HOULD BE.
However, som people a
H me aren't in this f
field so that''s why we shhould take it out. To me it's
ju trying to hard in a sen
ust h ntence. As f Number t
for three, I don't like the eng
t gagement paart.
What exactly does that m
W mean in this c context? It h me ques
has stioning well how? So,
Number Two is straight to the point a
N o about what w do, which is what we need when we
we h
te people wh it is we d — Angeli Juarez, Ja 22, 2012
ell hat do. ia an. 2.

Definition num
D mber two is my vote; see
ems to most succinctly d
t define what we do in a
co
oherent fashhion. — Amaanda Lenar, Jan. 22, 2012

Definition #2 is very close to the defin
D e nition we use at Washington State U
e University an
nd
in
nclude in our book (Aust & Pinkleto "Strategi Public Relations Mana
r tin on, ic agement:
Planning and Managing E
P Effective Communication Programs" We adopt it from C
n "). ted Cutlip,
Center & Broom's "Effect
C tive Public R
Relations" tex
xt.

That definition is: "a management fun
T nction that id
dentifies, est
tablishes and maintains
mutually bene
m eficial relatio
onships betw
ween an orga anization an the public on which its
nd cs
su
uccess or faailure depend ds."

I think Cutlip et al.'s phrassing about ppublics is mo clear (str
ore rategic) than the phrasin in
n ng
th newer de
his efinition. Alth
hough I agre with other that addin "a manag
ee rs ng gement funct tion"
to #2 could be useful, I ha a lot of r
o e ave respect for the develope concern that the term
ers' m
management seems too "top-down" o "one-way Perhaps a nuanced p
m t or y." phrasing focu used
on process but including managemen as a desc
nt criptive term can satisfy bboth
cooncerns. Although ethical practices should be a assumed requirement for any
an t
"m
mutually ben neficial relationship," I ag
gree with ma other po
any osters that "e
ethical" as a
descriptive te would be useful to a to #2. R
erm e add Research is a requiremen for strateg
nt gic
practices, so perhaps tha can be ass
at sumed witho making a further add
out dition.

Given that ma posters have noted that their cli
G any ients tend to focus on m
o marketing, I'd like
to advocate fo the positio that mark
o or on keting has a different go (to cultiva relationsh
oal ate hips
with
w consume that will e
ers engender pr roduct trial and loyalty) from public relations
(m
mutually benneficial relationships serv ving a variet of purpose and repr
ty es) resents an
application of public relat
f tions strategies rather th the pract
han tice of public relations m
c more
broadly.

uggest a cou
I therefore su uple of edits to #2, as follows:

Public relatio is a man
“P ons nagement function that e
employs ethi
ical, strategic
ommunicatio processe to develop and mainta mutually beneficial re
co on es p ain elationships
between orga anizations an the public on which their succes or failure depends.”
nd cs ss

12

— Ercia Aust professor and directo Murrow C
tin, or, Center for Media & Health Promotion,
Edward R. Murrow Colleg of Comm
E ge munication, W
Washington SState Univer
rsity, Jan. 22
2,
2012

Number two is the best b far. It enc
N i by compasses a the functio and it is clear and
all ons
su
uccinct.
On
O number one, what does "manage
o ement' function mean? A on number three,
And
"r
realize strate
egic goals," is gobbledyg
gook. — j raange, Jan. 22, 2012

Is definitely not a manage
s ement functi
ion. Definitio 2 is close — Ahahughes, Jan. 22,
on est.
2012

#2: in addition to the "mutually benef
n ficial relationships"
- "key publics How could you possib tell, who y
s" d bly your key pub
blics are, wh a global
hen
audience can switch its a
n attention to y in the blink of an eye And, depe
you e? ending on th
he
suubject matte they will f
er, force you into a relations
o ship before y can spel "not my ke
you ll ey
public".
- even if: How would deve
w elop and maaintain?
n.

I immediately gravitated t
y toward Defin nition No. 2 b
because I ca imagine public relati
an't ions
being defined as anything less than a strategic p
d g process. Cou it be that "modern" p
uld t public
elations is ac
re ctually more of a manag gement funct tion? Yes, pe erhaps it is. And it is
ceertainly nice to envision the relations
e ships as sym mbiotic, but I think that a its core, pu
at ublic
re
elations is more strategic than collab
m c borative. I also feel that describing it as a proces
t ss
(c
constantly ev volving and changing) is much more fitting than characterizing it as a
s e
management function or a simple engagement.
m t
— Theresa Souther, Jan. 15, 2012
S

Regarding de #2, whene
R ef ever I hear someone use the word strategic, I ro my eyes a
e oll and
th
hink: Reaching. — bperr Jan. 15, 2
ry, 2012

#2. I feel it coovers the va
ariety or prof
fession can hhave well - s
some people do social
e
media, some do public af
m sponse. But the bottom line is that w
ffairs, some do crisis res t we
all develop an maintain relationships in one way or another - the heart o PR after a is
nd y r of all
our ability to cultivate rela
c ationships. I hesitate to suggest add ding someth
hing about etthics
- is it really so
omething we grapple wit today mor so than any other bus
e th re siness
profession? — Nick Hoga Jan. 15, 2012
an,

By
B using the kiss theory o public rela
of ations, #2 wi hands do
ins own. — Graham Dodson
n,
Ja 15, 2012
an. 2

13

While many have "voted" for #2, I think it present some real limitations w the adv
W h " ts l with vent
of social med What I lik about 1 a 3 is the c
f dia. ke and concept of e
engagement, and
co
ollaboration with stakeholders. I thin it is a bit o
nk overblown to say that PR pros or the
o R e
discipline can foster mutu
n ually benefic relationships, and mo realistic to find a mu
cial ore utual
understanding. Also, wha is missing from #2 are the results and goals, w
at e which with th
he
ocus on the business case for PR sh
fo hould be incorporated -- PR needs t move beyond
to
a strategic co
ommunicatio process to get to the C-Suite min
ons e ndset. — Jennifer Redm mond
Baird, Jan. 15 2012
B 5,

This is the on we use at Ferris State University's Public Rel
T ne t e lations progr
ram: Public
re
elations is a clear, ethica and plann commun
al, ned nication proc
cess coordinnated by top
management to influence educate, a reinforce targeted publics.
m t e, and e

But
B out of the three used, I think #2 is the best. V
e s Very clear. — Samantha Bankey, Ja
a an.
15, 2012

Number two is the most a
N i accurate and really the o
d only one I co
ould see mys saying to a
self
cl
lient or non-PR person a
asking about what I do.

I do think the clause idenntifying "orga
anizations an their key publics" is u
nd unnecessary and
ations is a strategic communication p
estrictive. Simply stating "Public rela
re g process that
t
develops and maintains m
d mutually benneficial relati ould have be enough. —
ionships" wo een
Michael Crisp Jan. 15, 2012
M p,

Like some oth hers who ha commen
ave nted, I think t phrases "achieve res
the sults" and
realize strate
"r egic goals" a too vague. Of the thr candidat
are ree tes, I'm favoring #2. Still, I
th
hink there is opportunity through this initiative to emphasize the "big pict
s ture" importaance
of public relat
f tions. Here's another tak to contrib
s ke bute to the co
onversation:

Public relatio facilitate relationships for organ
"P ons es nizations and their public to fulfill
cs
mutual object
m tives for the benefit of bu
usiness, com
mmunity and society." — Jason Kirs
d sch,
Ja 15, 2012
an. 2

Iv
vote for #2, but wish it in
ncluded the word “ethica like defini
al” ition #1.
Here’s the on I came up with: Public Relations i a strategic communica
H ne p c is c ations proce
ess
used to develop and main ntain ethical and mutual beneficial relationship between
lly l ps,
organizations and their ke stake holders, to ach
s ey hieve busines objectives. — Jennife
ss er
Keller, Jan. 13, 2012
K

14

D. Definition No 3
D o.

Public relatio is the en
“P ons ngagement b between orgganizations a individua to achiev
and als ve
mutual under
m rstanding an realize str
nd rategic goals
s.”

Comments:
C

My
M issue with #3 is the la words - re
h ast ealize strate
egic goals. I ddon't think in
ndividuals, a a
as
person we target to connect and com mmunicate w with, typically consider re
y ealizing their
r
goals as sommething they focus on. Th focus is for someone to fix their problem or be
heir r
able to trust a company o organization to do tha In this day the definition needs to
or at. y, o
nclude the pe
in erson we try to reach. I j
y just don't ca for all tha wordy unn
are at necessary
la
anguage in. — Jen Ward Jan. 23, 2
d, 2012

I like that defi
inition No. 3 has only 17 words, it's c
7 clear and prretty concise in my opinion. I
e
don't care for the fact tha there is no mention of managemen function o strategic
r at o nt or
coommunicatio process in it. That be
on eing said, I th
hink No. 3 ha the greatest chance o
as of
being understood inside ( (and outside the industry and I think it captures the logical and
e) s
distinguishab character of PR. — R
ble r Richie Escov vedo, Jan. 22 2012
2,

I prefer versio 3 because of its simp
on plicity. It is al the one t
lso that, in my o
opinion would be
d
most easily understood b the broade group po
m by est ossible. The first two just seem to ha
ave
been written by a committtee to appea many di
ase ifferent inter
rests and grooups.

I also believe it's important that people understan there's a definition (m
e nd most formal) and
th an eleva speech t
hen ator that's where an individual explains in his/her ow words wh
e wn hat
th do. This can be high personal and reflect o
hey hly one's specia and inter
alty rests. Trying to
g
caatch all the specialties a interests in one defin
s and s nition will res in one th no one u
sult hat uses
or understand Thanks t the comm
ds. to mittee and tho involved for this effo — Mary
ose d ort.
Barber, Jan. 22, 2012
B 2

#3: the worst
- "between or rganizations and individu
uals": Ever h
heard of inte
ercompany reelations? B22B-
Communication? Will the work contra be consid
C e act dered as PR as it specif
R fies the
engagement between an organization (employer and an ind
r) dividual? Not to speak of the
t f
vaague definiti of what a organizat
ion an tion is.
n.

Definition 3. I love the wo "beneficial" very PRis — Kjaco
D ord sh. obsen17, Jan 15, 2012
n.

15

III. Excerpts fro Blog Pos
E om sts

Jim Grun in resp
nig, ponse to a P Conversations post (“A definin moment for public
PR t ng
relations Dec. 7, 2011):
s,” 2

I have come into this disc
cussion late, but let offer a couple of observation about the
, r f ns e
Canadian def
C finition of pu
ublic relations
s.

1. It is importa to disting
ant guish between a definitio and a description of p
on public relatio
ons. I
believe most of the “definnitions” offere are really description of what pe
ed y ns eople think iss
done in public relations–u
c usually only positive, eth
hical, and str
rategic public relations. A
good definitio should su
on ubsume as m many types o public rela
of ations as posssible–both g good
and bad.

2. Public relations is a proocess and sshould be deefined as a p
process. Rela
ationships and
eputations are outcomes not a proc
re s, cess. Thus, t Canadian definition m
the misses the mmark
by describing public relat
y g tions as the managemen of relationships. You c manage a
nt can e
process, such as commu
h unication, but you can’t m
manage an o outcome suc as
ch
elationships or reputation. If you manage a proc
re cess well, yo can influence the
ou
outcome, but you can’t m manage the o outcome.

Thus, I contin to come back to my definition of public relat
T nue f tions from Managing Pubblic
Relations writ
R tten in 1984. I added a ssentence in a partial revision of MPR that was n
R never
published: “P
Public relation is the ma
ns anagement o communic
of cation between an
organization and its publi
a ics. Its purpo is to cult
ose onships among organizations
tivate relatio
and publics.”

The
T key word in this def
ds finition are o
organizations (one party to a relation
s nship), public
cs
(t other par to a relationship), ma
the rty anage, comm munication, a relations
and ships.
Communication (of all for
C rms) is the pprocess that is managed (both well a poorly).
and
Public relations must be m
P managed (directed) or it is not public relations. R
t Relationship
ps
(a different types and qu
all ualities) are t outcome of the proc
the e cess. Thus, o can plac all
one ce
fo
orms of public relations i
into this definition. The g
greatest misunderstanding of this
definition has come from those who interpret com
s mmunication too narrowl (as only
n ly
messaging). Remember, communica
m ation is a pro udes one-wa two-way,
ocess. It inclu ay,
syymmetrical, asymmetric listening, telling, interacting, counseling, rese
cal, , earching,
dialoguing, an other form of communication be
nd ms ehavior.

I have a personal stake in this discus
n ssion, of cou
urse, but I ha yet to se a better
ave ee
definition.

…

16

CEOs can, of course, ma
C f anage their o
own commun nication–i.e., do public r
relations
th
hemselves. If fact, Marvi Olasky arg
I in gued that ea in its his
arly story public r
relations actu
ually
co
onsisted of private relati
p ions because CEOs inte eracted direc with the publics in th
ctly heir
co
ommunities and not thro ough the inte
ervention of a public rela
ations person (who Olas
n sky
th
hinks corrupt the process).
ts

My
M definition, therefore, m
, makes it clea that public relations doesn’t have to be done by a
ar c
public relation person.
ns

…

A definition of public relattions must ccover both go and bad public relat
ood d tions. I could
d
define playing golf, for ex
g xample, as s shooting a 60 or a 120. N all public relations is
0 Not c s
done in the public interes but it is st public rela
st, till ations. Some public relations is done in
e e
th public inte
he erest, but mu is not. W might qualify the defi
uch We inition with a adjective by
an
saaying that etthical public relations or responsible public relat
e tions is done in the publi
e ic
in
nterest, but those adjecti ives should not be includ in the de
ded efinition.

…

According to my Webster Dictionary a process is “a natura phenomen marked by
A r’s y, s al non
gradual changes that lead to a particular result.” An outcome is “result” o “effect.” W
e or We
might also sa that a proc
m ay cess is ongooing behavio that produ
or uces effects. I think that
almost all behhaviors of pu ublic relation people an their inter
ns nd ractions with publics are
ongoing communication b behaviors. TThose commmunication beehaviors hav effects on the
ve n
lo
ong-term qua ality of relationships and the nature of a reputati as well a short-term
d ion as m
efffects on aw
wareness, co ognitions, attitudes, and behaviors of publics and of
f d
management
m t.

I think it’s quite clear that communica
t ation is a pro
ocess. Many “communic
y cations”–i.e.,
messages–m be one ti
m may ime phenom
mena and not processual. That’s why it’s importa
y ant
not to use the word “communications when the m
e s” more approp priate term is
s
communication.” Now, th question is whether a relationship also is a process. I think
“c he p
th most of the processu activities that take pla within a relationship actually are
hat ual ace p e
coommunicatio activities. At any poin in time, a r
on . nt relationship has a particcular quality or
sttate. Thus, I should have said that th quality of a relationsh is an outcome. Of
e he f hip
coourse, no ou utcome is ev static, so the state of a relationsh changes and a natur of
ver o f hip re
a reputation changes. We try to influe
c e ence those ooutcomes through the pr rocesses tha we
at
ca personally manage (i.e., orient or govern). W cannot manage outco
an We omes directly.

…

1. Very fundaamental distinction betwe “commu
een unications” a “communication”. My
and y
question is if by accepting it we should also acce that comm
g ept munication c only be
can

17

partially “man
naged” . And probably th extent to w
d he which it can be “manage has chan
ed” nged
re
elevantly in the last year therefore making the management of the pro
t rs, ocess much more
co
omplex.

JG respons I should b clear abo what I me when I u the term “manage.” One
G’s se: be out ean use m
coommon syno onym for ma anage is “control.” This s seems to be what you ha in mind
ave
when asking this question The other common sy
w n. r ynonym is to “direct” or “
o “plan.” The latter
is what I have in mind. A process can be directed or planned but, like an outcome, e
s e n d d; n even
a process is difficult to co
d ontrol. It is po
ossible to direct our orga
anization’s c
communicati ion
behaviors eve with the n
en new media. We just hav to take mo possibilit
ve ore ties into acco
ount.
Thus, directin the process of communication no is more complex; but, I would arg
T ng ow gue,
th process is much more interesting and offers more effective ways to influence the
he s e g e
outcomes of relationships and reputa
s ations. I say this because I believe th new med
e he dia
of more int
ffer teraction and symmetry than old me
d edia, Thus, w generally can use the to
we y em
in
nfluence rela
ationships an reputation more effec
nd n ctively.

2. Would we include “pubblics” in the p
process side (in the sense that we s
e should consider
th
hem as elem
ments of the communicat tion process or in the “outcome” side (in the se
s), ense
th they are the counterp in the re
hat part elationships? Or how would we des
?) scribe the
tr
ransformatio of stakeho
on olders into publics (situaational variab
bles, influenc by
ced
coommunicatioon)? An outc
come or a pr rocess in itself?

JG respons The proce of public relations (c
G’s se: ess c communication) is an int teraction am
mong
organizations and publics Thus, pub
s s. blics are part of the proce
t ess. The out tcome is the
e
re
elationship among organ
a nizations and publics. Th last two p
d he parts of your question ar
r re
in
nteresting. Publics are not static enti
P ities; they ar always in process. At any one tim
re me,
however, we can stop an think of them as entities. However, we must k
nd keep in mind that
d
publics constantly change and come and go. As you have ob
e bserved, I us the situat
se tional
ariables of problem reco
va p ognition, leve of involvem
el ment, and coonstraint rec
cognition to
id
dentify differe publics a a particula time within general sta
ent at ar n akeholder ca ategories.
Situations cre
S eate publics, and commu
, unicators mu take the fluid nature of publics in
ust nto
account when they mana (direct) a organizat
n age an tion’s commuunication pro ocess.

3. As for the idea that “most of the pr
i rocessual acctivities that t
take place w
within a
elationship actually are c
re a communication activities let’s assu
s”, ume an exam mple felt quit
te
sttrongly by European citizzens these ddays. Auster measure implemen
rity es nted by
governments facing harsh economic situations are often acc companied b poor
by
coommunicatio Are these two differe factors determining t
on. ent together outccome of the
re
elationship between gov
b vernment and citizens? In this case, can we say that by
d
in
nfluencing deecision maki AND ma
ing anaging commmunication, organizations can mana age
re
elationships??

JG respons Again, the answer de
G’s se: e epends on ho you defin “manage.” You again
ow ne n
se
eem to sugg
gest that you mean “control” when you use the t
u term “manag but you also
ge,”

18

coould mean “influence.” I think that co ommunicato “direct” th process o
ors he of
coommunicatio with the o
on objective of “
“influencing” the relation
” nship. I think a useful wa of
k ay
lo
ooking at the distinction between a p
e process and an outcome is to ask whose behavior
e
am I trying to manage? M Mine or some eone else’s? I can direct my own be
? t ehavior, but I
caannot direct someone else’s behavior. (In the ca of public relations, “my” or “mine
ase c e”
means an org
m ganization ra ather than an individual.) A relations
n ship always i involves ano other
person or ent tity, so I cannot manage it without th collaborat
e he tion of the ot
ther entity. A
re
eputation alw
ways is in the mind of so omeone else (a cognitive behavior), so it especially
e e
caannot be maanaged by someone else Thus, we can manage (“direct”) a organization’s
e. e an
coommunicatio behavior. We can “an
on . nticipate” the communica
e ation behavi of a public,
ior
using a theor such as m situational theory of publics. If we choose the most effective
ry my e
coommunicatio behaviors for our organization an anticipate correctly th
on s nd e he
coommunicatio behaviors of our publics, we shou be able t positively “influence” t
on s uld to the
re
elationship between an o
b organization and a publi and the re
n ic eputations of organizatio
f ons
th are in the minds of publics.
hat e

…

The
T content– –i.e., what we say when we commun
e nicate–is alwways a part o the
of
ommunicatio process. The content of what an organization says, howe
co on t n ever, will be
more effective if a commu
m e unicator thin about the entire proc
nks e cess–i.e., the thoughts a
e and
ommunicatio behaviors of publics a well as th messages (the content or ideas) that
co on s as he s
th organization wants to communica I’m not s
he o ate. sure what yo meant wh you said
ou hen d
process trumps ideas. I w would say that our ideas are better wwhen we liste to others as
en
well
w as to our rselves when we develop them. Thu ideas dev
n us, veloped with hout
ommunicatio with someone other t
co on than ourself generally ar close-min
re nded ideas. A aAs
re
esult, I would say that on ideas tru
d nce ump process ses, real disc
cussion and engagemen
d nt
ce
ease.

…

1. PRs should admit that they are in t business of advocac for their e
d the s cy employers an nd
shhould not pr
retend to rep
present the innterests of ppublics equa with the interests of t
ally their
employers. My response: Of course, we are advo
M ocates for ou employers, but we will
ur
advocate their interests m
more effectivvely if we help them to understand w what those
nterests are and how the are affected by the int
in ey terests of pu
ublics and of whether
f
organizationa behaviors are ethical a respons
al and sible. We are not effectiv advocates if
e ve s
we
w only construct messages that fit the preconce eived ideas o our emplo
of oyers. You have
sa the same thing. How
aid e wever, I think we will be b
k better advoccates for our clients if we
r e
also are advoocates for pu
ublics. This is difficult bu possible. It requires an open-mind
ut t n ded
PR
P person who has empathy for othe and tries to understa their idea
ers s and as.

2. Leaders sh hould lead and not listen My respon
n. nse: Almost eevery book I have read on
le
eadership suuggests that leaders lead more effec
d ctively when they listen t those they are
to y
tr
rying to lead. Listening is an inheren part of lead
s nt dership. Sim
milarly, you s
said that

19

re
esearch para
alyzes decission-making and is overe
emphasized. That’s true, to some ex
xtent.
Decision-mak
D xpect resear to make decisions fo them. How
kers can’t ex rch or wever, resea
arch
provides data that when i
a interpreted w helps m
well managers ma better de
ake ecisions.

3. Stakeholde theory is o
er overused an suggests that everyon is a stake
nd ne eholder and
shhould have a role in organizational g governance. My respons I agree that the conc
. se: cept
has been ove ergeneralized. However, if used prop
, perly stakeholder theory (and theories of
y
publics) help us to define who truly should or doe have a ro in organiz
e es ole zational
governance and not spen a lot of tim communicating ideas to people f whom the
a nd me s for e
deas are not relevant. I d
id don’t believe that the inte
e erests of sta
akeholders aalways are inn
coonflict. In fac different s
ct, stakeholders have differ
s rent interests that often d
s don’t overlap
p.
Organizations obviously c
O s can’t commu unicate with everyone or try to serve the interes of
r e sts
evveryone. Ho owever, publ relations people shou be able to help mana
lic uld o agement identify
th stakehold
he ders who are truly import
e tant and wor with them in making d
rk m decisions annd
defining organizational be ehaviors.

From Ma
arketingPro
ofs.com (“How to Defin Public Re
ne elations,” Jan. 26, 2012
2):

I’m really not crazy about any of them although m initial pre
m t m, my eference is f definition #1:
for
“P
Public relatio is the ma
ons anagement function of rresearching, engaging, ccommunicating,
and collabora akeholders in an ethical manner to b
ating with sta build mutuall beneficial
ly
elationships and achieve results.”
re e

I don’t like us
sing the word “stakeholders” in this d
d definition. Pe
erhaps the pphrase “vario
ous
elevant publics” might be better. In the context o say, mark
re e of, keting or media relations a
s,
coonsumer ma not really be a stakeh
ay holder, since he or she m
e might easily have other
options when considering a product o service. T
n g or Thus, there is really no “s
s stake” in what an
organization does or says in that cas
d s se.

Here’s candid
H date #2: “Public relations is a strateg communication proce that
s gic ess
develops and maintains m
d mutually ben ionships between organizations and
neficial relati d
th key publics.”
heir

To
T me, #2, ha a basic w
as weakness in the words “m mutually ben
neficial relationships.” Thhis
assumes ther is any rela
re ationship at all between an organiza
ation and a k public, a it
key and
also assumes that what t organiza
s the ation wants wwould be ben
neficial to that public. Noot
necessarily so, for reason similar to the problem with #1 and more.
ns m

Definition #3 is: “Public re
D elations is th engagement between organizatio and
he n ons
in
ndividuals to achieve mu utual underst tanding and realize strat
tegic goals.”
”

I think this is too simplistic is too simp
plistic and, li #2, make some risk assumptio
ike es ky ons,
in this case re
n egarding “realize strateg goals.” W
gic Whose strategic goals mi
ight these be
e,
and how can we assume all parties in nvolved in th “engagem
he ment” have eeven remoteely-

20

siimilar strateg goals? A
gic And, by the wway, I don’t like the word “engageme
d ent.” It’s a
buzzword at the moment, but it may be passé in a year. We shouldn’t inc
t clude buzzw words
in a definition or the defin
n n, nition may b
become obso olete before the ink dries
s.

From coomments on PRNewser
n r.com (“Thr Possible PR Definit
ree e tions Revea
aled, Jan. 11,
2012):

“T goal was to eliminat jargon, bu they are filled with buz
The te ut zzwords that mean nothing
t
stakeholder, collaboration, engaging, strategic communicatio
to the average person: s
o ons
process....

A public relations profess
sionals helps an organiz
s zation unders
stand and co
ommunicate e
better with tho who are important to them, with the goal of protecting the organization's
ose e h
eputation.”
re

— Dave Arm
mon, Jan. 15 2012
5,

“If the exercis is about s
se simplifying th definition of PR, these examples are far from
he e
siimple. They are filled wit jargon. If your conten can't answ "Would m mother
th nt wer my
understand th his?", try aga
ain.” — Katy Kelley, Jan 15, 2012
y n.

“I agree with many of the comments about elimin nating jargon and being more simple My
n e.
question is who is the def finition for? Personally I think we wa PR to be valued as a
ant e
sttrategic role in both public and comm mercial sectors. To that end, I believ the definition
ve
needs to clea speak to executives and policy m
arly o makers who are not nec cessarily from a
m
PR
P background. #2 is the closest using this criter But I like some of the more
e ria. e
sttraightforward ideas from Dave Arm and Tim Becktold fro Business
m mon om sWire.” —
ContenMaven Jan. 15, 2
C n, 2012

From qu uotes in Cision Blog po (“PR exp
ost perts sound off: How w
d would you d
define public
relations Jan. 23, 2012)
s?” ,

“I don’t think public relatio needs a definition. I relating to the public, for chrissak
I p ons It’s o kes.
If PRSA want to do som
f ts mething outsttanding, they should dem
y mystify and s
simplify. A P
PR
pro is responsible for help ping an orga
anization succcessfully co
ommunicate with all its
audiences. No definition they draft an distribute and stamp their approv on will ev
N nd e val ver
chhange or insspire or affec what publi relations p
ct ic professional actually do
ls o.”

— Jason Falls, Founder & Editor, So
r ocial Media Explorer

“I think the de
I efinitions are all wrong. T
e They seem t be trying t bolster a r
to to reason for it
ts
exxistence and glamorize it–or as New might say “make it a g
d wt y grandiose sttatement”.
(O
Ooof!)

What is PR: It’s the ultim
W mate commun
nications too between t practition and the e
ol the ner end
user (usually a person wh buys or tr
ho ries somethiing). The power of being able to sha
g ape

21

op nsure messages are com
pinions, the ability to en uncomplicate the ideal of
mplete and u ed,
rafting conte that actually helps so
cr ent omeone und derstand a co
oncept…this is PR. And it’s
s d
not getting the press swa ayed either; s
since the pre can be s
ess swayed by a
anyone who
gives them a good quote!

Finally, what is PR?
F

1. An abbility to get people nation
nwide clarmo oring for you wares, turn
ur rning a local
father ‘n’ son shop into a natio
r p onal, never n
neglected, cconstantly re
eferenced, kn nown
everyywhere, megabrand.
2. Makin someone famous, infa
ng famous or no otorious for w
whatever she does, no
matter what it is.
3. Sendi our clien stock pric through th roof (we do not supp the Cohib
ing nts’ ce he ply bas).
4. Gettin social con
ng ncerns in front of our nei
ighbors and House repre esentatives
alike.
5. Makin a “gold” album shoot up the chart or get som
ng ts mething to “b
break” Hollywwood
style.
6. Settin the record straight.
ng d
7. Incapa acitating the competition and cannib
e n balizing the b
bastards.”

— Richard Laermer, CEO of RLM P
L PR

“P
Public relatio is the glu that bond cultures, c
ons ue ds companies a custome together
and ers
th
hrough a col llection of sh
hared stories and experie
s ences that r
reflect the en
ntity’s charac
cter,
purpose and business ob bjectives.”

— Barbara Rozgonyi, Pr
R rincipal, Cor
ryWest Media

“I define publ relations a the practi that help companies, people an brands
I lic as ice ps nd
exxpress themmselves in th best possi
he ible way. It is about help
ping them co
ommunicate –
e
directly, and with and thro
d w ough interme
ediaries – to advance th objective
o heir es.”

— Bob Gelle President Fusion Public Relation
er, t, ns

“P
Public relatio is a resp
ons ponsibility of an entire or
f rganization t listen, lear and conne
to rn ect
with
w their pub blics to creat value, wor
te rd-of-mouth and impact business results”

(“
“Plenty of ex
xplanation to wrap aroun my definit
o nd tion, but ultim
mately, PR h transform
has med
in
nto….

• business proc
cess vs. marketing function
• tw
wo-way vs. one-way con
o nversations
• im
mpacting bus
siness resul vs. delivering advertis
lts sing equivale
encies)”

22

— Matt Batt, Principal, P
, Pipeline

From Do Searls, alumnus fell
oc low at the B
Berkan Cent for Inter
ter rnet and Socciety and
Harvard, writing in the Doc Searls Weblog (“PR’s pro
, g oblems, 20 years later, Jan. 23,
,”
2012):

This is a serio effort, w much inv
T ous with volvement by Phillip She
y eldrake, who I respect very
om
much.
m

The
T main cha allenge, both for PR and for compan
h d nies in gener is that individuals — both
ral,
within compa
w anies and out in the markketplace — a going to be taking m
are more and mo of
ore
th lead in relations with the market’s supply side Reduction in demand for BS by
he s e. n
coompany brass will help tthat progres happen. B engagem
ss But ment will be t main thin
the ng.
That’s why I vote for Definition No. 3, without the “realize stra
T v , e ategic goals” clause (wh
hich
is straight out of BuzzPhr
s t raser).

PR
P for most of its history has been le about rel
o ess lations with publics (a te only PR folk
erm
about relations between companies and mediato the pres
use, far as I know) than a
k ors: ss,
TV,
T radio and (more rece
d ently) “influenncers” on the Web. The best people in PR and
e e
marketing have for decad been try
m des ying to move business re elations in th personal
he
direction. Tha is, toward the public it
at tself, directly
y.

But
B will PR will still be PR when that happens? In other word if somebo
w R n ds, ody’s job is t
to
help companies relate pe ersonally to c
customers, a to welco
and ome custome input and
er
eadership, what should w call that s
le w we somebody’s job?

From 21st Century PR Issues / Paul Seaman (“Definit
P tions of PR: keeping it honest,” June
t
20, 2009 and “For PR’s reputa
9; P ation: let’s d
define ourselves candiidly,” Jan. 1 2012):
16,

If I had to pick one word t
f that captures its essenc it would be “advocacy the act of
ce e y”:
pleading or arguing for soomething to influence an outcome o behalf of c
n on clients,
preferably by using two-w commun
way nication tech
hniques

# # #

23

Public Relations Defined — Feedback of Candidate Defintions

More Related Content

More from Public Relations Society of America (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Public Relations Defined — Feedback of Candidate Defintions