PRSA Response to PR Definition Criticism

Hello Spinsucks: It looks like they took down my post. I'm trying it again with no mention of Dave Rickey. The important point is that PR people should be interviewing critics like David Carr, Andrew Cohen and Gene Weingarten instead of talking among themselves. Those three writers have millions of people in their audience.

This discussion of the meaning of PR excludes any input by reporters. None was sought. There’s no doubt many in the press are angry at PR. We have covered PR 43 years via our website, newsletter and magazine and have never seen such a gulf between PR people and the press. Instead of trying to define PR, PR groups should be meeting with severe critics of it in the press. David Carr of the NYT has just said (Jan. 29, 2012) that he is fed up with “slop” delivered to him by PR “underlings.” http://bit.ly/A5rWeG. CBS-TV on-air editor Andrew Cohen said in 2008 that PR having an ethics code is like a group of burglars having a code against stealing. He said what PR people do is trying to “turn milk cows into race horses and turkeys into eagles. http://bit.ly/6nlrKA Gene Weingarten, columnist for the Washington Post, in 2007 called PR people “pathetic dillweeds.” Annoyed at the mountains of e-mail, releases and phone calls he gets from PR people, he tried calling some of them up and asking questions. All he got was juniors who couldn’t answer anything. http://bit.ly/yHC6ff. (Use second & month for the user name and password to access). PR people, besides angering reporters, are the least trusted people in any company or institutions. They are the corporate “snitches” ready to pounce on anyone who says a negative word about the employer. At major companies and institutions, their every word on the phone or in e-mails is monitored by lawyers. Corporate “PR” has all but disappeared and almost totally resides in the agencies these days which talk to reporters. Check out this gag policy by Viacom: http://bit.ly/bx2FKP. The PR Society and the Rockefeller Foundation paid $150,000 for research that conducted live interviews with 2,000 Americans. Published in 1999 after five years of work (including two years on the interviews), the study found “PR specialist” to rank 43rd in visibility on a list of 45 sources. The Society did nothing about this finding except to try to hide it and forget it. It never printed the table in the monthly Tactics nor anywhere. Only when PR groups and PR individuals face the above facts and actually talk to reporters will something be done about the image of PR. Rickey points out that only 15% of Society district, chapter and section leaders use “PR” as part of their titles. Only six of the 50 largest U.S. PR firms as tracked by odwyerpr.com use “PR” in their titles. Less than five of the 150 blue chip corporate “communications” executives in (PR) Seminar use “PR” in their titles. This 65-year-old group of communications heads at big companies itself dropped “PR” from its title three years ago. There are ten books about PR with “Spin” in the titles. Who is going to put the PR Humpty Dumpty together again? Actions by PR people, including contact with critics such as Carr, Cohen and Weingarten would be a start. –Jack O’Dwyer

@ginidietrich@Frank_Strong@maddiegrant@Anthony_Rodriguez@Danny Brown@PaulRobertsPAR@Shonali@Soulati | B2B Social Media Marketing We know our Public Relations Defined project has caused angst and even some indignation among communication professionals. We tried to approach the project with fresh thinking, which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. But, that's how innovation happens, and how we learn to do better in the future.

We’ve read the articles, blog posts and comments like these, which have made it clear to us the discussion mustn't stop with the vote on three candidate definitions that currently exist. PRSA is going to keep its Public Relations Defined blog up after the winning definition is announced, with the hope that we can continue to engage professionals, including those who’ve commented in this forum and elsewhere, in a discussion about the definition of public relations.

Consider this your invitation and your opportunity to come up with something better. We'll provide any and all data from the first go-round. Our minds are open. If we can collectively move closer to a consensus definition of public relations, PRSA will support it. You can read more about our plans for moving forward here: http://bit.ly/xKiHhd.

It's kind of interesting that PR professionals who are supposed to be the go to for level-headedness and clarity in times of crisis like this, are the ones kind of freaking out. I'm guilty of it as well, I was the one that voted for #4. So their is definitely an added level of respect for writing such a tempered article in light of all of this.

With that said, I'm going to look at this as if you were my client. From the looks of it you are trying to launch a new product and want us, your PR counsel, to tell the world that it's red and shinny but in reality it's blue and lackluster. I think we can all say this has happened at some point to our displeasure and we have all dealt with it accordingly. We can either go along with it and pitch the media or fire the client for ethical reasons because it's not the truth. At the end of the day it's just another announcement and there will be many more to come.

In the case of PR, I honestly don't think you can define it right now because it's going through a transition with social media that puts PR professionals in the drivers seat. We are relying less on the media (only part of what we do) and engaging directly with our customers/communities in meaningful and honest discussions. The underlying issue though that you bring up in you last sentence is performance and results - something that we don't take credit for or publicly display. We work behind the scenes mostly as we are in the bridge building business and connect our clients to the world.

When will this come to an end??? when will there a solution to this search????

Bensie Dorien

prcompanionpr@gmail.com

www.prcompanion.com

RANT WARNING...okay, you want a well thought out reason why PR needs to be redefined, check in with @Frank_Strong - he says it best.

You want alternative suggestions, they are easy to fine, here is a good place to start @Soulati | B2B Social Media Marketing http://soulati.com/weve-defined-PR-by-jove.

There are lots of well thought out and articulate opinions about why, PR should be re-defined, what is wrong with the current process and what should be done next. This isn't one of those. This is raw emotion from a PR guy that has been in the industry almost 20 years, has had little use for PRSA and now finds himself embarrassed by this entire process.

There are lots and lots of PR people that don't know this conversation is happening and there are even more that don't care. I'm now in the don't care category.

I agree that PR should be redefined. I agree that redefining PR is difficult. I agreed that this is a good and noble cause. But, as of right now, I'm officially out. No matter the final outcome, I will not get behind any definition the PRSA comes up with. I don't need it. I don't want it and I will not accept it. You don't speak for me. I only wish I were ever a paying member of PRSA, so I could publicly demand my money back.

In a way, this process and the resulting cacophony is itself the definition of PR. Any of the official and unofficial candidates discussed in this thread would work.

We're in the business of telling stories, and it's our job to help divergent audiences find the same meaning and truth, no matter what words or methods we use to convey them.

If we can't settle on a single definition, perhaps that's because it's neither possible nor desirable.

I'm not sure this is helpful but it is funny (at least I think so, remember I'm British) and may help to deal with Gini's "what do I say at a cocktail party when people ask me what I do" dilemma http://sarahsfav.es/2012/02/16/fave-meme-what-people-think-i-do-what-i-really-do-pr-consultant-edition/.

By the way - I love the idea that Gini goes to cocktail parties - over here we're so poor we just drink at home...(according to today's Times anyway).

I was asked for my post, By Jove We've Defined PR, by someone in this stream (via Twitter), so thought I'd come by and share it for anyone wanting to see the culmination of some really hard work by member in this community, too.

http://soulati.com/weve-defined-PR-by-jove

For those who don't want to see how this came to fruition, here's what we, collectively (not just me) came up with:

Public Relations helps people say the right things to the right audiences at the right time and in the right way.

Thanks, Gini. @Anthony_Rodriguez

When I graduated from college in 2010, I was excited to work in "public relations." Now, only two years later, I almost exclusively use words like "strategic communications" and "reputation management" because those terms seem to communicate the strategic part of what we do better. PR does have an image problem -- it DOES need to be redefined, or we risk losing the term all together.

This post makes it sound you're giving up on the vision of finding a common ground definition that gets us excited to use the term again. Don't! Don't lose sight of the vision because you want to stick too closely to the process. The vision was right, the process just didn't generate the desired results. Go back to the drawing board!

Hi everyone,

Some great comments here. I've asked David to come back and respond, so hopefully he will soon!

- Lisa

I am one of those who said, "we did it better on my blog" a year ago -- nearly exactly. I crowdsourced globally for four weeks on this definition -- did an entire series on What Is PR and then attempted to conclude with a definition. Did we succeed? To an extent, we did. This exercise is practically doomed from the get go; however, it must occur (as it is) because the alternative is the archaic 80yo definition PRSA is using now.

I just went back to the three choices PRSA is providing in the voting. Tried to copy them here so people can see them again...sorry, that didn't work.

With the wonderfully expansive list of key words (of which "publics" is not one of them, but "audience" is) above, why are the three choices so similar in nature? There really is no choice; these are only words repositioned.

I'm disappointed with the choices most of all. There really could be three more distinct options based on the tag cloud list above. I do applaud this undertaking and the fact that PRSA took this process longer than just over Thanksgiving when no one really knew it was happening.

I believe the definition is quite simple. In short, when asked to define my role in Public Relations my answer has always been, "I aggressively engineer perception".

I don't understand. Rickey agrees that every single criticism has merit and explains how they have merit but PRSA is still continuing with this exercise despite several professionals with tons of experience telling him that the definition is the wrong way to go. This defies logic.

Should this even be a priority initiative of the PRSA? Improving ethics seems to be the more overwhelming goal that needs to be achieved.

If we, as public relations professionals, expect people to understand what we do and what its purpose is, a definition should not make people's eyes glaze over and 1) not make them want to learn more and 2) make them keep the same stereotypes associated with public relations. If you had a 30-second elevator ride to explain public relations to somebody, what would you include? To me, that would result in a much better explanation of what our profession is all about.

I believe Dave, like many of us who have worked on this initiative, was trying to convey that in the age of crowdsourcing and social media, we're going to encounter criticism, and that's a good thing. No matter what we come up with, there will never be 100% consensus. I find myself disagreeing with dictionary definitions of the most mundane of words when working with my kids on their homework. That said, it is a starting point that was conceived with democratic collaboration. We've invited everyone to the proverbial table. We've asked for input and feedback every step of the way. We've considered every single comment that was entered. And, what we've provided as the final options reflect all of that work. It's a bit different than when our ancestors came up with dictionary definitions a few hundred years back or even how Webster's goes about doing it still today. This has been a collaboration through and through.

WOW! I'm not a PR person, but I have some things to say.

Definitions matter. They are powerful, and they're hard. But the days where glorious definitions were centrally created I think are over. True, that used to be the association's job. We gathered the experts in the smoke filled room and came out with something better than the "rank and file" could. And people listened. Sorry. It doesn't work that way any more. "Crowd-sourcing" funneled through a task force isn't the answer either.

The PR community doesn't need a single definition (from the perspective of this outsider anyway). You need a dialogue on meaning. On what matters. On what's important. You need a really powerful conversation about why this industry and this profession should be a part of our collective future (because nobody's spot is guaranteed). Not crowd-sourced, but decentralized, emergent, organic. Let the brilliance of your community reveal itself. Let the smart people wrestle with the conflict of a top-down-biased industry in a decentralized world. A community that separates itself from its "publics" in a mechanical way. That stuff needs attention. But enough with the task forces. Not on something important like this.

So let me get this straight.

1. You're fine with people hating the definitions - but that speaks to the "difficulty of coming up with a single definition that describes the entirety of every role and function within the profession"? Is that what you were attempting to do? Go big or go home, as they say. You had a goal to modernize the definition - not describe every role and function. Do you really, truly think the final definitions achieved the goal? If they don't - start over. there's nothing wrong with that.

2. Just because a bunch of jargoony words were crowdsourced doesn't mean you needed to use them all in the same definition. In fact, what if you had said "no jargon allowed"? Or even had people NOT in the profession suggest definitions - and I don't mean any old people, but people who can write? A poet, a playwright, a short story writer, a marketer, a journalist? The English language is a beautiful thing. You should know this - you're a communicator by trade.

3. The profession's image is BAD. Dire straits, if you ask me. Spin is out - truth is in. This initiative might not have been about changing the image of the profession - but maybe it should have been. The new definition definitely doesn't speak to any of those other things you mention as being important.

4. This one makes no sense. The new definition is not modern, but that's ok? Then what was the point of this whole exercise?

And then there's this. "Regardless of what you think of the final candidate definitions, you can rest easy no one is forcing you to adopt the “winning” definition. PRSA will, and if you’d like to do the same, great; if not, that’s fine too." Wow. If that's not a "F you" then I don't know what is.

This whole thing strikes me as a "not seeing the forest for the trees" situation at its finest. I think this is a HUGE opportunity to take the bull by the horns, to say OK, we didn't get to the definition we wanted to get to, because the final definitions simply do not meet the stated goal which is to modernize the old definition of PR. So let's go back to the drawing board. Let's look at that definition, and figure out what's wrong with it in the first place.

“Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” Does "the organization" need redefining? "The publics" DEFINITELY does. What about the idea of mutual adaptation? Is that still what PR does? If not, then how has it changed?

Whatever you do, just don't treat your digital community like idiots. Because one day in the not so distant future you'll turn around and none of them will be there anymore. And you'll have no reason to exist, then, will you.

So essentially you're saying PR is a Rorschach blot. Then what's the point of this exercise?

I'm a PR outsider. I like your response, but I'm not sure you've resolved the issue. Jargon sucks. Publics is a ridiculous word. Do you mean audiences? What's the difference?

Open it up for contributions from scratch and at least TRY to put it in 6th grade USA TODAY non-jargon language. Even if you don't use it- do it because it's worth learning to be clear, and unclear statements from an org who represents communicators is a bad example.