Comments on: PRSA Response to PR Definition Criticism

By: Public Relations Defined, After an Energetic Public Discussion | Argyle Communications

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:36:28 +0000

[...] a response from an executive of the organization that was leading the effort, David C. Rickey, who described the criticism thusly: “Nothing more clearly illustrates the reason why the profession hasn’t arrived at a ‘de [...]

By: Advertising: Public Relations, a Topic That Is Tricky to Define | Finance Easy

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:28:21 +0000

By: arthury

arthury — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 21:57:55 +0000

@PaulRobertsPAR By the way, I’m on vacation out of the country next week, just so you know that I’ve not bailed on the discussion. I’m sure my colleage, Keith Trivitt, will be picking up where I’ve left off. If I’m not back in a week, though, don’t come looking for me … : )

By: arthury

arthury — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 21:50:06 +0000

@PaulRobertsPAR Paul, we’re going to complete the process we began, as Dave Rickey noted in his blog post on PRSAY (I believe you commented there, as well). As he noted, though, we no longer view this as the end of the discussion, but as a chance to move forward from it. If we can arrive at a better definition through the continued work of individuals such as yourself, and a broad majority coalesces around that definition, then PRSA will support it.

BTW, we don’t disagree at all on the involvement of public realtions folks from all walks of the profession, which should and will include PRSA members. That was the whole point of crowdsourcing in the first place. I will say, though, your comment about “long-time PR pros” made me laugh. Some folks who were cricical of our initial effort accused us of involving too many “long-time” PR pros, and not enough new pros. As you and I discussed via Twitter, #youjustcan’tmakeeveryonehappy.

By: PaulRobertsPAR

PaulRobertsPAR — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 01:04:19 +0000

@arthury All good questions and probably questions that should be answers before finalizing a vote on the three finalists. Where you and I will probably disagree (which is okay) is the involvement of the PRSA Chapters. You probably should have some interest in their opinions and I’m more interested in the large group of PR folks that are not members, but are long-time PR pros. Maybe that is for selfish reasons as I’m in that group.

I’d err on the side of having a large over the ‘right’ people in part because I don’t know why you consider to be the ‘right’ people.

Just so there isn’t any doubt. Let me know what I can do to help. I’m all in.
Best.
-Paul

By: arthury

arthury — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:50:38 +0000

@PaulRobertsPAR I’m not sure we’ve thought that far in advance, but would it be fair to say that it should take more than just the number of folks in this forum? Also, is it more important to have the “right” people endorse it, or have a larger number endorse it? And, just what does that endorsement look like?

Should we go back to the professional organizations with it? To PRSA’s Chapters, as some have suggested? I think we’d like the group’s opinions on those issues, and maybe we kick off the next phase of this project by making some foundational assumptions. Remember, our intent all along was never to dictate, but to facilitate, and that’s what we’ll be doing moving forward.

By: The Definition of Public Relations « More than PR Basics

The Definition of Public Relations « More than PR Basics — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:32:51 +0000

[...] you been following the discussion and controvery surrounding PRSA’s effort to redefine public relations? If so, what do you think? What are [...]

By: opjacklucy

opjacklucy — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:37:22 +0000

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

By: PaulRobertsPAR

PaulRobertsPAR — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:24:23 +0000

@maddiegrant Thanks for the reply. I do get that. Yours is a very fair way of looking at this. I’m just not convinced. I hope I’m here a few months from now saying that I was wrong and that they had the best of intentions from the get go. But, I’m not there yet. If I’m proven wrong, I’ll be the first to admit and I’ll be thrilled to be wrong.

By: maddiegrant

maddiegrant — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:50:13 +0000

@PaulRobertsPAR Personally, I’m ok with that. I think if the definition is incrementally better than before (which I know is debatable) and satisfies some of the original participants, then it’s ok to close that first loop and not just leave them all hanging. But it seems pretty clear (not just from these discussions but from the deafening silence in support of the definition) that that’s just closing the loop on step 1, which the important work might be yet to come. I think the fact that the PRSA is not just “allowing” more discussion but actively hosting it and providing all of the source materials to look at and inviting people in a different way to weigh in is the crucial, and right, decision here.