“Art is why I get up in the morning; my definition ends there. You know it doesn’t seem fair, that I’m living for something I can’t even define. And there you are right there, in the mean time.” Ani DiFranco
def·i·ni·tion: a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something Merriam-Webster
Ask 10 PR professionals to define public relations, you’ll likely get 10 different responses. Ten different responses can only mean the essence is not known. If the essence of PR is unknown, then like silence in a crisis, the function and industry will continue to be defined for us.
There’s an acute problem with the unknown: It is impossible to present a consistent and cohesive value proposition around a function that we cannot define.
This is the motivation behind PRSA’s well-intended attempt to tackle the definition of PR. However, the resulting PR definitions have left much to be desired. They are not suitable PR definitions. While there’s several discussions aimed at improving these definitions, I think there’s a subconscious catalyst for how we arrived here: an aversion to PR’s history and lineage of propaganda.
A pioneer of PR, Edward Bernays unabashedly referred to public relations as propaganda. It’s important to point out this occurred before propaganda earned a negative connotation (Bernays attributes this to Nazi Germany). Needless to say that connotation took hold and consequently, the industry today tip-toes around the essential nature of PR by merely adding more lipstick on the proverbial pig.
The challenge here isn’t that we don’t understand the definition, it’s that because of its history, we shy from saying what it in fact is out loud.
It seems to me, PR is ashamed to say we are trying convince people to buy something (business), join something (association), support something (government or non profit) or vote for something (political). The industry gets wrapped up in this idea that we are impartial, liken ourselves to journalists, and focus on “mutually beneficial relationships.”
We are not impartial. We should not pretend to be impartial. We should not strive to be impartial. And if we think we’ll be invited to sit with senior management to discuss “mutual understanding” with “publics” — then we are collectively on a fool’s errand.
We are advocates for a particular point of view, product or idea. Our job is to convince people to say nice things about whatever it is we are representing, in person, in news, in blogs, or on social media. PR is about third party validation. And you know what? There’s nothing wrong with that! Further, it should not prevent us from developing a statement that expresses the essential nature of PR.
Rest assured, if we do not define PR, or we do a poor job of defining it, everyone but us will continue to define it:
“Yet, after a century of spinning, PR Man remains uncertain of his proper role. Is he a master manipulator? Is he the devil’s advocate (as long as Satan pays his fees)? Or is he a benign bridge-builder between the corporate world and the public?” The Economist, December 16, 2010
If you enjoyed this post, you might also like:
PRSA’s #PRdefined: please don’t redefine failure
PR as lipstick on the proverbial pig
Public Relations: the year in search
The Economist and PR: Stereotypes and Reflections
