Change can be a good thing, right? That’s what we’re told throughout our careers and at almost every seminal moment in our lives.

When it comes to change in public relations, most practitioners readily embrace new ideas and ways of doing things. We thrive by implementing new concepts — from social media to blogger outreach — and using those to their advantage.

That’s what undergirded the “Public Relations Defined” initiative, which culminated a little over a week ago with the announcement of a new, modern definition of public relations.

It’s safe to say that most PR professionals have had a chance to voice their opinion. From the hundreds of blog posts, tweets and other commentary, there is no shortage of opinion.

For the most part, the “change is good” mantra is the reaction PR practitioners seem to have in response to the new definition. The overriding sentiment is positive.

Sure, there are some who criticize. That’s fine. In fact, we expected a diversity of opinion, regarding the initiative itself and its outcome. Or, as Stuart Elliot wryly put it in his New York Times column announcing the new definition, there was no “small amount of sniping, snide commentary and second-guessing.”

It’s unfortunate, but he’s right.

At the same time, a plethora of industry luminaries, including Jim Grunig, Neville Hobson and Jeremiah Owyang (analyst at the Altimeter Group) have given their blessing to the new definition.

Grunig says he’s “reasonably happy” with the new definition. Hobson called it a “far more contemporary interpretation of how the profession practices its craft.” And Owyang tweeted that the modernization of the definition of public relations “makes sense in the two-way sense that social has changed.”

Those are three influencers that any PR practitioner would be thrilled to have on board for a client campaign. And each supports the new definition.

Continue reading " Embracing Change: Reactions to the New Definition of Public Relations "

Following 1,447 votes, hundreds of submissions, abundant commentary and nearly a year of research, we are pleased to announce the winning modern definition of public relations. Based on a public vote, held Feb. 13–26, of three candidate definitions, the profession’s choice for the modern definition of PR is:

“Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.”

Listed as Definition No. 2 in the public vote, it received 671 votes, or 46.4 percent, of 1,447 total votes.

Simple and straightforward, this definition focuses on the basic concept of public relations — as a communication process, one that is strategic in nature and emphasizing “mutually beneficial relationships.” “Process” is preferable to “management function,” which can evoke ideas of control and top-down, one-way communications. “Relationships” relates to public relations’ role in helping to bring together organizations and individuals with their key stakeholders. “Publics” is preferable to “stakeholders,” as the former relates to the very “public” nature of public relations, whereas “stakeholders” has connotations of publicly-traded companies.

You can read more about this exciting announcement in Friday’s New York Times advertising column.

Continue reading " A Modern Definition of Public Relations "

Editor’s note: The following post was submitted as a comment in response to a Jan. 27, 2012, column by PRWeek (US) Editor-in-Chief Steve Barrett regarding the “Public Relations Defined” initiative, which is a PRSA-led international advocacy campaign to modernize the definition of public relations. In the column, “Let’s Cut the Crap and Get On with the Work,” Barrett takes a dismissive view of the initiative and its ability to advance the profession.

Update (3 p.m. EST, Jan. 30): The comment has been published at PRWeekUS.com.

I say … this does come as a surprise, what with Julia Hood, Haymarket EVP, helping to plan the [“Public Relations Defined” initiative] last September as then-president of the Arthur W. Page Society, and with Danny Rogers, PRWeek UK editor-in-chief, endorsing the initiative as an “appropriate” endeavour that “matters” because “finding a new definition of PR [will help the] tens of thousands employed within this well-established industry … to more clearly and consistently explain what they do — and the value they add.

Mere technicalities, one supposes, when page views are at stake.

Perhaps it’s worthwhile to hearken back one year ago, to when much of the discussion taking place in the blogosphere centered around the need — and, specifically, the need for PRSA — to modernize the definition of public relations. Had we ignored those discussions, I suspect today’s cheeky headline would have been, “When Will PRSA Get Off Its Arse?”

Damned if you do, I guess … as noted blogger Arik Hanson has rightly pointed out, we are a profession that loves to criticise our own.

Still, we’ll let the profession’s interest in this initiative speak to its worth.

Since the project’s launch Nov. 21, 2011, there have been approximately 300,000 page views of the PRDefined website; 30 trade and business media articles; 50 blog posts; thousands of blog comments (including several by noted public relations theorist James E. Grunig, Ph.D.); 1,000 definitions submitted; 152 observations received during the public comment period; and thousands of Tweets using the #PRDefined hashtag.

Crap? Bloody brilliant, I’d say …

Continue reading " How #PRDefined ‘Gets On with the Work’ of Building PR’s Value "

It’s an exciting time to be succeeding Rosanna Fiske, APR, as PRSA’s chair and CEO. Economic prospects for the public relations industry appear brighter as we head into an election (and Olympic) year, the profession continues to demonstrate and enhance its value in key service areas and PRSA is leading international collaboration on one of the most discussed projects in the profession’s recent memory: the “Public Relations Defined” initiative.

Carrying on the prescient work that Rosanna initiated in 2011, with the help of 12 allied professional organizations from around the world — and, to wit, every public relations professional who took the time to contribute a definition, make a comment, ask a question or write a blog post — we are moving rapidly toward a more modern definition of public relations.

We have a learned a great deal from the exercise that will serve us well going forward on how to optimally configure initiatives that employ the new channels, bold methodologies and creative conduits that are now prevalent for seeking authentic input from members and the public relations industry at large.

One of the lessons learned is that the anticipation that this initiative has built must be tempered by the responsibility we have to ensure it is handled in a deliberate and considered manner.

As we have said previously in this space, we were pleasantly surprised at the high level of global interest in this initiative and number of definitions submitted. The quantitative and qualitative data arising out of the crowd-sourcing phase were noteworthy. We heard from several of our allied partners that they wouldn’t mind having more time and opportunity to review and provide input on the candidate definitions.

From the beginning, PRSA’s goal has been to create a definition that the entire profession has a role in shaping, which professionals, organizations and academics alike can appreciate and own. With that in mind, I think it’s appropriate for us to take a refreshed perspective and implement a slightly modified direction for #PRDefined; one that will allow for greater input from our partners and the profession, in a manner befitting the project’s stature.

Every good PR program is flexible, and this initiative is no exception.

Continue reading " New Year, Modified Direction for #PRDefined "

If there is one thing public relations professionals enjoy, it is engaging in a spirited debate; none more so than the future of our profession. That was evident in the overwhelming response we received for the “Public Relations Defined” initiative during the initial public submission phase.

Because of that unprecedented response and interest, PRSA’s Definition of Public Relations Task Force is taking additional time to analyze the data collected. We are also providing more time for our 12 global partners to offer their feedback.

As such, three candidate definitions will now be posted on the PRSA website for a public vote in early- to mid-January. At that time, we will make an announcement to invite you to vote for the new definition of public relations.

We hope to announce the results of the votes and the new definition in late-January. This should allow for greater exposure for the new definition, befitting its significance to the future of the profession.

Continue reading " #PRDefined Update: Revised Timeline "