Recently I was at a work-related function, and a woman from another organization asked me what I do.
"I'm the director of public relations."
"Oh, so you do press releases..."
As her voice trailed off, I tried hard to make sure my outward expression did not match my inward sigh of frustration. I quickly interjected, "And also our publications, and our web site, social media. And some speechwriting."
Her view of my job was limiting, but I didn't do much to help. I suspect that a lot of PR people -- particularly those of us who work in-house -- when asked what our job entails, tick off a list of the products we produce, without addressing what is supposed to be the underlying reason for our existence: to use the specific tools of our profession (those products I mentioned above, among others) to help our organizations achieve their strategic goals.
Perhaps that goes without saying. And maybe it's self-absorbed to assume that no other profession faces the same dilemma. When someone tells me they are an accountant, I don't ask any more questions, because I assume I understand what they do, but that may not always be the case. It may vary by organization and industry. Certainly, my role as director of public relations means different things at different places.
After all, how was I supposed to respond to that woman? Tick of the new, official, PRSA-sanctioned definition of public relations, or perhaps its superior Canadian cousin? I'd come off as vapid at worst, pretentious at best. So yes, ma'am, I do write press releases.
The problem is that many of us internalize this short-hand for what do, and we let it define us, both within our organizations and without. That's the reason for wrangling over how to correctly define what we do. Too many of us think our jobs are to create these products, this collateral, when in reality those are all means to an end. Yes, I know I've spent an awful lot of time going over this subject at this blog, but it's an awfully important subject.
And it's not just about how to describe ourselves on LinkedIn. It also speaks to how we measure our results. At the end of the year, do we tally the awards our magazines and newsletters won, do we count headlines and web hits? Or do we look at the organizational results, and say, "When we did X, the company got Y." Or at least, "The company got Z because of Y, and it got Y because we did X."
Otherwise, we are mere communicators. Not that there's anything wrong that. It's just that for me, it's not enough.
Showing posts with label PRSA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PRSA. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
What we can learn from America's hat
Canadian PR guy Victor Vrsnik weighs in on the public relations definition debate that has so vexed those of us south of the border. Turns out Canada has its own defition of PR, and it's better than ours:
"Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals and serve the public interest."
Compare that to the recently approved American definition:
"Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics." (emphasis in both cases is from Vrsnik)
Why is Canada's conception of the dark art of PR better than that of the good old U S of A? As Vrsnik notes, it is explicit in recognizing that public relations is a means for achieving an organization's strategic objectives, i.e., its business goals. Hence he draws on Don Draper's famous line, "I don't sell advertising. I sell products."
Integral to achieving business goals are managing relationships, which Vrsnik notes is at the core of the Canadian definition. By contrast, we Americans place our emphasis on the communications aspect of public relations, which is merely a means to an end, not the end itself. Vrsnik is devastating but dead-on accurate in his conclusion:
Corporate outcomes make PR practitioners relevant and invaluable; moves us to the C-Suite; and puts us in a position to seize ownership of emerging technologies for communicating messages.
People who sell social media will always be hired to do social media. People who sell media relations will stay in the communications ghetto. People who talk in terms of corporate objectives get to do it all.
What a powerful declaration. It's a finger, poking us in the chest as PR professionals, demanding to know, 'Are you good enough? Do you know what it takes to succeed?'
I have my answer. What is yours?
"Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals and serve the public interest."
Compare that to the recently approved American definition:
"Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics." (emphasis in both cases is from Vrsnik)
Why is Canada's conception of the dark art of PR better than that of the good old U S of A? As Vrsnik notes, it is explicit in recognizing that public relations is a means for achieving an organization's strategic objectives, i.e., its business goals. Hence he draws on Don Draper's famous line, "I don't sell advertising. I sell products."
Integral to achieving business goals are managing relationships, which Vrsnik notes is at the core of the Canadian definition. By contrast, we Americans place our emphasis on the communications aspect of public relations, which is merely a means to an end, not the end itself. Vrsnik is devastating but dead-on accurate in his conclusion:
Corporate outcomes make PR practitioners relevant and invaluable; moves us to the C-Suite; and puts us in a position to seize ownership of emerging technologies for communicating messages.
People who sell social media will always be hired to do social media. People who sell media relations will stay in the communications ghetto. People who talk in terms of corporate objectives get to do it all.
What a powerful declaration. It's a finger, poking us in the chest as PR professionals, demanding to know, 'Are you good enough? Do you know what it takes to succeed?'
I have my answer. What is yours?
Friday, March 2, 2012
And the winner is...
The PRSA has announced the winning definition of public relations:
"Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics."
You'll recall my definition:
Public relations is a strategic process by which an organization reconciles its interests with those of the public.
And of course this simple, straightforward version by the PR Coach:
Public relations is: Stronger relationships, the best communication, in the best channels, at the right time, to the right people…
"Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics."
You'll recall my definition:
Public relations is a strategic process by which an organization reconciles its interests with those of the public.
And of course this simple, straightforward version by the PR Coach:
Public relations is: Stronger relationships, the best communication, in the best channels, at the right time, to the right people…
Monday, February 20, 2012
A defining moment
The PR Coach has a better definition of public relations than I do:
Public relations is: Stronger relationships, the best communication, in the best channels, at the right time, to the right people…
As a reminder, here is mine:
Public relations is a strategic process by which an organization reconciles its interests with those of the public.
Funny how people whose job it is to communicate clearly and concisely with the public seem barely able to describe what it is we do, even amongst ourselves. Maybe we need to stop spending so much time analyzing it, and just do it.
Public relations is: Stronger relationships, the best communication, in the best channels, at the right time, to the right people…
As a reminder, here is mine:
Public relations is a strategic process by which an organization reconciles its interests with those of the public.
Funny how people whose job it is to communicate clearly and concisely with the public seem barely able to describe what it is we do, even amongst ourselves. Maybe we need to stop spending so much time analyzing it, and just do it.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
And you do what for a living?
As an update to my previous post about the PRSA's effort to define public relations, here are the organization's three candidates for the official definition of just what the hell it is I do everyday:
Definition No. 1:
Public relations is the management function of researching, engaging, communicating, and collaborating with stakeholders in an ethical manner to build mutually-beneficial relationships and achieve results.
Definition No. 2:
Public relations is a strategic communication process that develops and maintains mutually-beneficial relationships between organizations and their key publics.
Definition No. 3:
Public relations is the engagement between organizations and individuals to achieve mutual understanding and realize strategic goals.
Remember, here is my definition:
Public relations is a strategic process by which an organization reconciles its interests with those of the public.
Careful readers will note that I've added the word "strategic" to my definition, a nod to the second candidate above -- which is pretty close to mine -- but also because everything we do in PR needs to be tied to the strategic goals of our clients or organization. That notion is at the heart of just about everything this blog is about, and, hopefully, everything I'm about as a professional.
It's all the definition I need.
Definition No. 1:
Public relations is the management function of researching, engaging, communicating, and collaborating with stakeholders in an ethical manner to build mutually-beneficial relationships and achieve results.
Definition No. 2:
Public relations is a strategic communication process that develops and maintains mutually-beneficial relationships between organizations and their key publics.
Definition No. 3:
Public relations is the engagement between organizations and individuals to achieve mutual understanding and realize strategic goals.
Remember, here is my definition:
Public relations is a strategic process by which an organization reconciles its interests with those of the public.
Careful readers will note that I've added the word "strategic" to my definition, a nod to the second candidate above -- which is pretty close to mine -- but also because everything we do in PR needs to be tied to the strategic goals of our clients or organization. That notion is at the heart of just about everything this blog is about, and, hopefully, everything I'm about as a professional.
It's all the definition I need.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Webster's says...
It turns out that PRSA has an official definition of public relations (who knew?) that is about 20 years old, and which the organization is seeking to update. Here it is:
"Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other."
A bit clunky, but it's actually pretty close to my definition: Public relations is a process by which an organization reconciles its interests with those of the public.
Note that what neither definition includes is the word "communications" which too many people, particularly outside the field, think is all that PR people are capable of doing. To them, PR is just communicating an organization's actions -- or trying to hide them, as the case may be. As I've said, my job isn't to try to put a positive spin on your bad decisions; it's to help you make good decisions, based on my knowledge and professional judgment of how those decisions will impact the public. And then we communicate accordingly.
Public relations is a management function -- or it should be -- tied to an organization's strategic goals. That's not to say that every decision an organization makes needs to be popular. Sometimes, for example, a corporation has to downsize, or close a plant, or do something that is going to alienate some constituency. But the public relations counselor should ensure that such decisions are not made by the organization in a vacuum, that such decisions are truly necessary, and carried out ethically and humanely, as much as is possible.
Which brings me to a debate in which I engaged a few weeks ago in which I said, more or less, that my fellow PR practitioners need to toughen up, and quit fretting about the industry's negative stereotypes. Our good work should speak for itself, I wrote.
The problem with that, though, is that often our good work isn't visible to anyone outside the organization, and sometimes not even to those inside the organization. It's about the counsel we provide that helps leadership avoid a mistake. It's the negative story that doesn't leak out to the media. (OK, so sometimes we do try to bury bad news. Sue me.) Which means that the negative stereotypes, and the limited definition of PR that many people hold, will continue to hold us back, keep us from fulfilling our potential as strategic counselors, and stunt our employers in the process.
As any PR person worth his or her salt knows, sometimes it's best to admit you were wrong and move on.
"Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other."
A bit clunky, but it's actually pretty close to my definition: Public relations is a process by which an organization reconciles its interests with those of the public.
Note that what neither definition includes is the word "communications" which too many people, particularly outside the field, think is all that PR people are capable of doing. To them, PR is just communicating an organization's actions -- or trying to hide them, as the case may be. As I've said, my job isn't to try to put a positive spin on your bad decisions; it's to help you make good decisions, based on my knowledge and professional judgment of how those decisions will impact the public. And then we communicate accordingly.
Public relations is a management function -- or it should be -- tied to an organization's strategic goals. That's not to say that every decision an organization makes needs to be popular. Sometimes, for example, a corporation has to downsize, or close a plant, or do something that is going to alienate some constituency. But the public relations counselor should ensure that such decisions are not made by the organization in a vacuum, that such decisions are truly necessary, and carried out ethically and humanely, as much as is possible.
Which brings me to a debate in which I engaged a few weeks ago in which I said, more or less, that my fellow PR practitioners need to toughen up, and quit fretting about the industry's negative stereotypes. Our good work should speak for itself, I wrote.
The problem with that, though, is that often our good work isn't visible to anyone outside the organization, and sometimes not even to those inside the organization. It's about the counsel we provide that helps leadership avoid a mistake. It's the negative story that doesn't leak out to the media. (OK, so sometimes we do try to bury bad news. Sue me.) Which means that the negative stereotypes, and the limited definition of PR that many people hold, will continue to hold us back, keep us from fulfilling our potential as strategic counselors, and stunt our employers in the process.
As any PR person worth his or her salt knows, sometimes it's best to admit you were wrong and move on.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Matt Lauer, meanie
The writer of this PRSA blog post takes Matt Lauer to task for daring to ask Starbuck's CEO Howard Schultz whether the company's initiative to put the jobless back to work was merely a "PR campaign" -- the obvious implication being that there is something underhanded in trying to get credit for doing something worthwhile. The blog writer, Arthur Yann, thinks Lauer is being dismissive of public relations and perpetuating negative stereotypes about the profession.
Mr. Yann is not the only person in our profession to fret over how others perceive us. I suppose you could say it's an occupational hazard: we spend so much time worrying about the reputation of our clients and employers, it's only natural to give some thought to our own. So I mean no personal disrespect to him or any of my colleagues when I say: Get over yourself.
Look, if I didn't worry about how the world at large perceived me when I was a journalist, I'm not going to shed many tears over it as a PR practicioner. The best I can do is serve my organization ethically and to treat the public honestly. As I've said, the best public relations is good conduct. If we, as a profession, conduct ourselves with honor, we will be treated with such.
Then again, I can be a bit of an idealist about these things, which brings me back to the esteemed Matt Lauer. First, the guy has got to put up a tough front. The Today Show is soft enough as it is. If Lauer appears to be shilling for Starbuck's, the guy is going to get reamed.
Second -- and here is perhaps where I sympathize with Arthur Yann's point of view -- what's wrong with doing something for public relations, as long as what you are doing is beneficial? Regular readers of this blog know what I believe my professional purpose is: to reconcile the interests of my employer with that of its various publics. By that definition, what Starbuck's is doing is a PR campaign, and from what I can see, a damn fine one at that.
Mr. Yann is not the only person in our profession to fret over how others perceive us. I suppose you could say it's an occupational hazard: we spend so much time worrying about the reputation of our clients and employers, it's only natural to give some thought to our own. So I mean no personal disrespect to him or any of my colleagues when I say: Get over yourself.
Look, if I didn't worry about how the world at large perceived me when I was a journalist, I'm not going to shed many tears over it as a PR practicioner. The best I can do is serve my organization ethically and to treat the public honestly. As I've said, the best public relations is good conduct. If we, as a profession, conduct ourselves with honor, we will be treated with such.
Then again, I can be a bit of an idealist about these things, which brings me back to the esteemed Matt Lauer. First, the guy has got to put up a tough front. The Today Show is soft enough as it is. If Lauer appears to be shilling for Starbuck's, the guy is going to get reamed.
Second -- and here is perhaps where I sympathize with Arthur Yann's point of view -- what's wrong with doing something for public relations, as long as what you are doing is beneficial? Regular readers of this blog know what I believe my professional purpose is: to reconcile the interests of my employer with that of its various publics. By that definition, what Starbuck's is doing is a PR campaign, and from what I can see, a damn fine one at that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)