Something popped into my inbox this morning on a topic I have been following with interest for quite some time.
PR Week’s enews headlines included a story about the PRCA rejecting the PRSA’s newly unveiled definition of PR.
The definition states that PR is ‘a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organisations and their bodies’.
I think I agree with @ginidietrich who wrote on Spin Sucks that the problem with most PR definitions is they don’t mean anything – she described the PRSA’s three shortlisted definitions as being “full of corporate, marketing lingo bingo”. :-D
When someone asks me what I do, I wouldn’t dream of repeating the PRSA’s definition. It isn’t the way I communicate – it’s not my style.
I do consider myself to be a PR professional – but there are certain areas of PR that I am much better at than others. So when someone asks me what I do, this is what I say…
“I help organisations find the right stories, the right voice and the right platforms to communicate with the people that matter to them.”
I’m thinking about adding, “so they can achieve their business goals” or “so they can improve their reputation”.
But having read Rick Rice’s post today Shift the perception of Public Relations – perhaps I should review my pitch… I agree wholeheartedly with what Rick says, but I don’t think the people I do business with want “the bigger picture” from me. I’d love it if they did, but I’m just not in that market – yet.
Maybe we’re all spending far too much time trying to come up with a definition that’s too clever.
An accountant helps with financial matters.
A lawyer/solicitor/barrister helps with legal matters.
A doctor helps with health matters.
Can’t a PR person simply help with reputation matters?
We’re all helping organisations be better at what they do aren’t we? Why else would we be doing what we do?
What do you think about the PRSA’s definition? Was the PRCA right to reject it?
BTW – love this graphic which makes it very clear what PR is not…
My issue is that the new definition still means NOTHING to my mother. We strive to communicate on the level of our “publics” but using it to convey a general idea of PR results in far too many blank stares for my liking.
Hi Brittany – and thanks for joining in :) I guess the friends and family test is a good one, and I too still haven’t found something which elicits the “ah, so that’s what you do” response yet…. although my children think I write for newspapers, magazines and websites.
I used to work for the Institution of Civil Engineers – and they had the same problems we in the PR industry have in terms of getting people to understand what they do. At least we’re not the only ones ;)
Well, you know I have an opinion about this. :)
I like that you’re considering adding “to help drive business goals” to your definition. That’s what we’re missing in our definition. WHAT do we do? We don’t communicate with publics. Publics isn’t even a word.
The issue is bigger than the industry needing a new industry. We need a consistent way of measuring results. We need to figure out where we stand in the marketing mix. We need to stop saying we don’t sell. That’s baloney. Everyone sells or they don’t have jobs.
Thanks Gini – and you’re so right about the selling. If someone in a company doesn’t contribute to the selling process you have to wonder what they’re doing there. It’s all about business goals and how PR plays its part in an organisation achieving them. The more we shout about that as what we do, perhaps people will become less focused on the tactics (which I completely recognise are what I have described in my elevator pitch). I can’t tell you how many times I’ve met directors who tell me they want to get in the media, without thinking about the bigger picture. It’s just what some directors want FULL STOP without all the strategy/consultancy = cost that goes with it. Sometimes it’s easier to talk about tactics, and I’ll hold up my hand to saying what I think people want to hear, rather than pushing what I want them to hear. Oh dear, back to the drawing board for me… ;) Really appreciate your comment – and the fact that you’ve taken the time to check out my blog :)
Ug. Do not get me started about directors/prospects/clients who say they want PR only to discover what they really want is media relations. A little more than two years ago, we started calling ourselves an integrated marketing communication firm instead of a PR firm. We instantly (I mean overnight) went from media relations to strategy. It’s all about perception and, unfortunately, the PR industry doesn’t do much to change it.
Integrated marketing communication eh? Now there’s a thought… Thanks for the inspiration again :)