One of the national PR associations is sponsoring an online effort to redefine "public relations."
Good luck with that.
To most people, the practice of "PR" exists somewhere between the harmless hype of P.T. Barnum and the toxic smokescreen of a Nixonian cover-up. To many people, at its least offensive, it amounts to word-smithing, party-planning, glad-handing, and pitching (as in trying to convince some hapless reporter to write or not write something).
At a more objectionable level, PR is "spinning," which is a term of art for "lying;" or it's "influence," which can easily de-generate into outright bribery.
One of the most dangerous trends I noted when I was active in the field was the way the tactics of lobbying and political campaigning were bleeding into the practice of public relations.
Many CEOs are captivated by lobbyists who prowl the corridors of power on what appears to be an equal footing with our elected representatives. Of course, their way is greased with gobs of well-placed PAC and corporate money. But they seem to have clear goals, and they can be ruthless in achieving them. That appeals to the typical alpha-dog CEO.
I don't mean to suggest that lobbying is inherently evil and PR is pure. (My beloved son-in-law is a lobbyist, after all.) But the two functions are fundamentally different. Lobbyists and political operatives are basically transactional. They're all about getting a vote (or avoiding one).
Public relations, on the other hand, should be about building enduring relationships. And that has to start with understanding a broad range of stakeholders, not so much to influence them, as to help shape an institution's policies and practices.
If I had one suggestion for the folks trying to redefine PR, it would be this: whatever you come up with, put less emphasis on advocacy and more on the kind of listening that can inform corporate decisions.
Comments