PRSA's PR definition is designed by committee, resulting in a camel instead of a racehorse
Three responses dominate PRSA’s effort to modernize the definition of public relations: angst, apathy and anger/annoyance. Which camp are you in?
I’m in the annoyance camp. I think PRSA’s campaign to crowdsource a new definition was well-intended. Predictably, the three final choices feel like they were designed by committee. Instead of designing a racehorse, we get to choose from three camels.
The envelope please. The final PRSA nominees are:
- Public relations is the management function of researching, communicating and collaborating with publics to build mutually beneficial relationships.
- Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.
- Public relations is the strategic process of engagement between organizations and publics to achieve mutual understanding and realize goals.
Underwhelmed? Me too.
Four Issues with PRSA’s PR Definitions
My biggest issues with these PR definitions are:
- Jargon: Could we pick colder, more unwelcoming words then “management function”, “mutually beneficial”, “publics”, “process of engagement”? Come on people. We’re writers and communicators.
- Passive: Any 1st year PR prof will tell you to use action words to energize your writing. How about “Public relations manages, researches, communicates and collaborates to build strong public relationships“?
- Not user or audience-friendly: Try remembering and spitting out any of these three in the elevator or with your mother-in-law!
- Lacks passion: Worst of all, these three choices lack passion. Just like a general, a CEO or a candidate for the Oval Office, if you can’t communicate passionately, you’re destined for failure.
I know, it’s easy to be critical but these definitions need critique. That’s what you do when you care.
By the way, you can read PRSA’s response to critics here and my original suggested definition there.
Okay smart guy. What would you do? Well, I’d take the winning statement or definition and challenge PR pros and others on Twitter to come up with a “tagline” that really communicates what PR is.
Imagine the possibilities. Just for fun, what if we “borrowed” some of the world’s best taglines? (Thanks to Forbes list of “Best-Ever Advertising Taglines“) The front-running tag lines could include:
- PR: The ultimate driving machine
- PR: Just do it
- PR: Don’t leave home without it
- PR: We try harder
- PR: Got milk?
- There Are Some Things Money Can’t Buy. For Everything Else, There’s PR.
- PR: Think different
- The Few. The Proud. The PR.
- PR: You deserve a break today
- PR is forever.
You think we had a conversation getting to this point? Open this PR Pandora’s box and watch the sparks fly as we pick a PR tagline. And maybe that’s what’s missing. Where is the passion in these PR definitions?
It’s still a good effort despite the shortcomings. It was an honest attempt by PRSA and we’ll still be further ahead with a newer definition of PR. Besides, we’ll never satisfy all the people all the time.
In the meantime, please vote here before Feb 26th so we can move ahead. Despite my humorous suggestions, we will always find our own words to describe our personal visions and definition of PR. Perhaps that’s the beauty and the art of public relations.
Judging by the pace of change in the past two or three years, we’ll soon be searching for a new, updated definition.
What do you think? Satisfied? Could you use any of these definitions and communicate your passion for PR? Got a tagline that you’d love to share? Glad to hear from you in the comments below.
If you want more PR passion, sign up for The PR Coach blog or get the RSS feed delivered to your favorite reader.
Author: Jeff Domansky
Photo credit: alles-schlumpf
More reading on PRSA’s PR Definition
And The Winner Is – a New PR Definition [Pollack PR Marketing Group Blog]
Redefining Public Relations: continued…again [my 2 cents]
PRSA defends the candidate definitions of ‘public relations’ [PR Daily]
New PR Definitions and a Great Conversation [The PR Coach]
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Travis, the main point is a lively, healthy discussion. I’ve never been shy about using common sense to guide me in my years in PR and simple usually is better as you note. I wish we had better choices for the definition but I won’t worry too much either way. I just expected better from professional communicators. Thanks for taking time to comment.
Jeff,
As others have said, excellent post! I’m a relative newcomer to the world of PR, having graduated less than 5 years ago. However, these stand out as pretty bad even to me. I think simplicity is what we should be striving for here. Though often more difficult to produce, I really think this campaign would benefit from a liberal dose of the “less is more” approach. Thanks for a great article!
Sam, you’ve hit on the core problem with these three choices – lack of clarity. For communicators, that’s not good enough. My tagline suggestion is to support a fuzzy definition PRSA is determined to choose. I’ll keep you in mind for the tag, I mean tagline team
I’m not a fan of any of the three definitions, but I don’t think I’m supposed to be (a fan). My definition of a definition is a statement that should clarify meaning. Now, I don’t agree that these do, so I agree with you there. Where I disagree with you is at the notion that it should be a tagline. Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE a good tagline, and would love to be a part of any campaign to create one for Public Relations or just about ANY other reason (seriously, if you’re doing a tagline, I’m in!), but PRSA’s goal wasn’t to create a tagline, it was to redefine PR, literally.
Frank, you’re right. If we were a client, we wouldn’t accept any of the three choices offered. Appreciated your thoughts!
Jeff, count me in the start over from scratch camp. This project did not deliver as advertised. I’m a firm believer that if we take on a job, we do it well, or not at all We’ve already taken a step towards the former, so let’s get it right.
Brad, you’re right the definitions are not ready for prime time. We need to do better and that’s why we need to start a campaign for a tagline. Can you imagine using any of these in an interview if you were training a spokesperson? Aaaargh! Thanks for commenting.
Jeff,
Thanks for a terrific article and for summarizing PRSA’s attempt to redefine “PR.”
I’m not as charitable in my interpretation as you are. The three definitions are all jargon-filled mush that do nothing to stand out and grab the attention of the public. I’d expect some tepid language from, say, accountants or engineers, but aren’t P.R. professionals supposed to lead the way in showing other professions how it’s supposed to be done?
I also find PRSA’s response that the statements came about since certain words tested well in a focus group infuriating. They should use those results to inform their definitions, not as an excuse to burden them with industry buzzwords that mean little to the general public.
If a client drafted these messages before coming to one of our message development workshops, I’d hurl them in the trash. “Strategic process?” “Management function?” “Publics?” Blech. I hope my work is never described in such bland, uninspired language.
Keep up the good work on following this story, Jeff. I look forward to your follow-up.
Brad
{ 1 trackback }