Why Definitions of “PR” Fall Short
Last week, the global Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA) – another trade organization serving our industry – introduced its latest definition of “public relations.” It reads:
Public relations is the strategic management discipline that builds trust, enhances reputation and helps leaders interpret complexity and manage volatility – delivering measurable outcomes including stakeholder confidence, long-term value creation and commercial growth.
This varies quite a bit from the definition that the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), our pre-eminent trade organization, published in the 2010s:
Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.
I’m not a big fan of what PRCA did. From a simple writing perspective, it’s too long…it’s wordy and not terribly well constructed. From a professional perspective, I think it’s a bit too specific and narrow-minded.
Over the years, I’ve come to understand “public relations” as a holistic business discipline. It’s why I’ve landed on the title “The Umbrella Model of Strategic Communications” – there are 11 different elements of professional communications, each with a variety of sub-elements. All of them add value and can be the right solution for a business depending on their unique situation and objectives. Elements and sub-elements also can be put together strategically to drive further efficiency or value. It’s pretty fun to construct and execute programs where 2 + 2 can equal 5 because of the added value a unique combination can deliver in a particular instance.
With that in mind, there are some key ways I think that PRCA’s definition falls short:
Over the decades, professionals throughout the business world have come to associate “PR” with whatever their experiences are – or however popular culture has defined it. These connotations cast us as publicists, party planners and crisis fixers – more generally, as tacticians that don’t really offer much true business value. Even though PRCA tries to specify more value, they still use the term “public relations” and that allows other’s preconceived notions and conventional wisdom to creep into the picture. It’s a kind of brand dissonance that doesn’t serve us well.
There are so many more ways that strategic communications brings value than just the areas highlighted by the definition. For example, I’ve built programs that help companies convert more efficiently through their sales pipeline…that transform morale and create supercharged teams…and much more. I fear people will won’t read this close enough to understand this is a partial list – and they’ll forget about what else is possible.
Personally, I’d like to see trade organizations broaden their definitions to be more inclusive of all of the different ways that businesses communicate with their audiences and the professionals that work in those areas. I like PRSA’s definition the best because it’s the least restrictive about the value that we can bring and how we bring it.
