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.
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.