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…