A new word for a new world

The current definition of “Public Relations” offered by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is, “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” 

Not only is this definition “vague”, as Stuart Elliott (no relation) wrote in his NY Times article, Redefining Public Relations in the Age of Social Media, it is confusing and limited. Therefore, it is no wonder the PRSA is seeking a new definition fit for the modern age.  

In November 2011 the PRSA launched prdefinition.prsa.org as a platform by which visitors could submit suggestions for a new definition. The template asked visitors to answer the following questions: “Public relations (does what) with or for (whom) to (do what) for (what purpose).”  

Before completing this fill-in-the-blank assignment, I thought it would be helpful to review some existing definitions and descriptions.

• In the early 1900s Edward Louis Bernays defined public relations as “a management function which tabulates public attitudes, defines the policies, procedures and interests of an organization. . . followed by executing a program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance."

• The first World Assembly of Public Relations Associations, held in Mexico City, in August 1978, defined PR as "the art and social science of analyzing trends, predicting their consequences, counseling organizational leaders, and implementing planned programs of action, which will serve both the organization and the public interest.”

• The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) offered the following definition in 1988: "Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other."

• Finally, Wikipedia tells us that “others define it simply as ‘the practice of managing communication between an organization and its publics.’”  

There is a lot to be learned from these and in my opinion they should not be dismissed.  

If I were to have submitted a suggestion to the PRSA, it might have read something like this (an amalgamation of some of the better points offered above):  

“In this digital age, it is the PR professional’s duty to both respond to content as well as influence the content that is created by others. In doing so, Public Relations must gauge public attitudes; analyze trends while predicting their consequences; counsel clients; and implement planned programs of action.”  

I think this definition is much more descriptive and takes into account the two-way nature of PR. However, simultaneously, this can create an ethical dilemma. If PR professionals are helping to develop or influence content where does the truth lie? Do we need to be concerned that they may be creating stories that suit their own needs? A la the “brand journalism” that Gerard Corbett describes in his article, Time for Resolutions: Will You Commit to PR Ethics in 2012? I don’t. As with anything, it is not the rule or the tool, but how the person applies it.  

For this reason, and others, I have chosen not to discuss ethics in the definition. I don’t believe that this is where it belongs; this is what a code of ethics is for, or at least the mission, vision, values of an organization.