Last week, the Public Relations Society of America revealed its official,
new definition of public relations after initiating a public input and public
voting process. The end result (receiving 46% of the vote) was the
following definition:
“Public relations is a strategic
communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between
organizations and their publics.”
While I’m not writing to
expressly criticize PRSA as an organization or the definition process, I do
think the industry organization missed a huge opportunity.
First, while certainly
a marked improvement over its 1982 definition, “Public
relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other,” the new definition is not much different than the
one in the book Cutlip and Center's Effective Public Relations
(which is used as a study guide for attaining APR) that I’ve seen since
becoming a member 12 years ago. That
definition is that public relations is, “the
management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial
relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success and
failure depends.”
I had concerns with that definition,
which brings me to my second point: the new definition is still not in layman’s
terms and full of jargon, which is something we as an industry advise our clients
to avoid in their communication. Not
that we define an industry just by what others outside the industry think, but
it sure would be nice to finally and clearly explain to my family what I do.
Third, we often complain
that senior management doesn’t take us seriously enough or doesn’t give us a
seat at the decision-making table. The Society,
to its credit, has responded though the inclusion of public relations courses
with some MBA programs. But, it’s curious
to me that the words, “management function” from Cutlip’s definition (or
anything remotely close to that) are missing.
Just saying “strategic communication” doesn’t cut it in my estimation or
help the profession get a seat at the decision-making table.
Fourth, what I believe is
still difficult about public relations (and thus a reason it’s difficult often
to justify or have C-level people understands its true value) is measuring
it. Yes, there are some tactical ways to
do this for sure. But, I do feel that this
opportunity we had define the profession would have been more fruitful has we put
forth something that is more tangible and thus more measurable.
Instead, we are left with
a definition that seems to be little more than a copy edited version of the Cutlip
definition. I think that’s part of the
reason the definition and the Society have been criticized. Like me, many of us were encouraged and
excited at the fact our industry was finally going to be properly and modernly
defined. That excitement has waned with
the release of something we’ve pretty much already seen and still doesn’t say
much.
Surely, whatever the
Society came up with was going to receive some level of criticism but I would
have rather it been on the fact that we were being to bold or too
revolutionary.
Labels: PRSA, Public relations
